The works of John Owen

THE

WORKS

OF

JOHN OWEN, D.D.

EDITED BY

THE REV. WILLIAM H. GOOLD, D.D.,

EDINBUBGH.

VOL. XII.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.

LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN: JOHN KOBEETSON.

MDCCCLXII. lQx

o a

MURRAY AND O1BB, PRINTEES, EDINBURGH.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XTI.

VINDICLE EVANGELIC^;

OB,

THE MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL VINDICATED
AND SOCINIANISM EXAMINED.

PAGE

3

.

5

.

6

.

11

.

55

i,

59

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR,

Dedication,

Epistle Dedicatory,

Preface to the Reader,

Mr Biddle's Preface to his Catechism.

Mr Biddle's Preface briefly examined

CHAP.

I.— Mr Biddle's first chapter examined— Of the Scriptures,
II.— Of the nature of God,

III-— Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God, .
IV.— Of the attribution of passions and affections, anger, fear, repentance,

unto God— In what sense it is done in the Scripture,
V. — Of God's prescience or foreknowledge,

VI.— Of the creation, and condition of man before and after the fall,
VII.— Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God,
VIII.— An entrance into the examination of the Racovian Catechism in the
business of the deity of Christ— Their arguments against it an
swered ; and testimonies of the eternity of Christ vindicated,
IX.— The pre-eternity of Christ farther evinced— Sundry texts of Scripture

vindicated, ....
X.— Of the names of God given unto Christ, .

XI- — Of the work of creation assigned to Jesus Christ, etc.— The confirmation
of his eternal deity from thence, .....
XII.— All-ruling and disposing providence assigned unto Christ, and his
eternal Godhead thence farther confirmed, with other testimonies
thereof, .....

HI — Of the incarnation of Christ, and his pre-existence thereunto,
XIV.— Sundry other testimonies given to the deity of Christ vindicated,
XV.— Of the Holy Ghost, his deity, graces, and operations,

XVI.— Of salvation by Christ,

XVII.— Of the mediation of Christ

XVIII.— Of Christ's prophetical office, ....
XIX.— Of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, and of the worship that is ascribed

and due to him, .....

XX.— Of the priestly office of Christ— How he was a priest— When he en
tered on his office— And how he dischargeth it,

XXI — Of the death of Christ, the causes, ends, and fruits thereof, with an
entrance into the doctrine of his satisfaction thereby,

85
86

108
115
140
169

205

236
248

265

371
397
411

!V CONTENTS.

CHAP. f PAGlt

XXII.— The several considerations of the death of Christ as to the expiation of
our sins thereby, and the satisfaction made therein— First, Of it as
a price; secondly, As a sacrifice, . • 419

XXIII.— Of the death of Christ as it was a punishment, and the satisfaction

made thereby, .... . . . • 433

XXIV.— Some particular testimonies evincing the death of Christ to be a pun
ishment, properly so called, . . • • • 443
XX V.— A digression concerning the 53d chapter of Isaiah, and the vindication

of it from the perverse interpretation of HUGO GROTIUS, . . 455

XXVI.— Of the matter of the punishment that Christ underwent, or what he

suffered, ........ 485

XXVII.— Of the covenant between the Father and the Son, the ground and foun
dation of this dispensation of Christ's being punished for us and in
our stead, .... ... 496

XXVIII.— Of redemption by the death of Christ as it was a price or ransom, . 508
XXIX.— Of reconciliation by the death of Christ as it is a sacrifice, . .531

XXX.— The satisfaction of Christ, on the consideration of his death being a
punishment, farther evinced, and vindicated from the exceptions of

Smalcius, .542

XXXI.— Of election and universal grace— Of the resurrection of Christ from the

dead, • . • •...'.,« • v • • 551

XXXII.— Of justification and faith, ....... 561

XXXIIL— Of keeping the commandments of God, and of perfection of obedience

— How attainable in this life, ...... 564

XXXI V.— Of prayer ; and whether Christ prescribed a form of prayer to be used
by believers ; and of praying unto him and in his name under the
old testament, ........ 577

XXXV.— Of the resurrection of the dead and the state of the wicked at the last

day, . .581

[APPENDIX.]
Of the Death of Christ, and of Justification, . . . .591

A EEYIEW OF THE ANNOTATIONS OF HUGO GROTIUS.

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR, . . . . . . . 618

A Second Consideration of the Annotations of Hugo Grotius, . . . 619

Epistles of Grotius to Crellius, . . 633

VINDICLE EVANGELIC J!;

OR,

THE MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL VINDICATED AND
SOCINIANISM EXAMINED,

1NT4B

CONSIDERATION AND CONFUTATION

OP

A CATECHISM CALLED "A SCRIPTURE CATECHISM," WRITTEN BY J. BIDDLE, M.A.,

AND THE CATECHISM OF VALENTINUS SMALCIUS, COMMONLY CALLED

"THE RACOVIAN CATECHISM;"

WITH

THE VINDICATION OF THE TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE CONCERNING THE DEITY AND

SATISFACTION OF JESCS CHRIST FROM THE PERVERSE EXPOSITIONS AND

INTERPRETATIONS OF THEM BY HUGO GROT1US, IN HIS

ANNOTATIONS ON THE BIBLE.

ALSO, AN APPENDIX,

IN VINDICATION OF SOME THINGS FORMERLY WRITTEN ABOUT THE DEATH OF CHRIST
AND THE FRUITS THEREOF FROM THE ANIMADVERSIONS OF MR. R. B.

BY JOHN OWEN, D.D.,

A SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST W THE WORK OF THE GOSPEL.

VTJ .*%.( irifrturyi, £«» T» ot<reSii]-it rut xxTX
)i A<*£»if ypoupS*. — CYRIL. HIEROS., Catech. 4.

OXFORD: 1655.

VOL. XIL

PREFATORY NOTE.

Ix 1654 the commands of the Council of State were laid upon Owen to undertake the
refutation of Socinianism, which about that time was introduced into England, and in
the following year the "Vindicise Evangelicse" appeared; — a work of unequal merit, and
in many parts obsolete under the new light shed on the subject by more recent discus
sions, but in the main so solid as never to have been answered ; containing much that
modern polemics have by no means superseded ; full of information as to the early his
tory of Socinianism, nowhere else to be gleaned in the theological literature of Britain ;
and altogether of such substantial excellence as to render its author's name worthy of
its place as historically the first among that splendid catena of divines, — Bull, Water-
land, Horsley, Hagee, Fuller, Pye Smith, and Wardlaw, — by whom the cardinal doc
trines of Christ's person, Godhead, and work, have been placed on a basis of unshaken
demonstration from the Word of God.

In the execution of his task, our author resolved to meet three parties whose writ
ings tended to unsettle the general belief of the Church of Christ respecting these doc
trines ; — Biddle, whose publications, devoted to the propagation of Unitarian sentiments,
had drawn the attention and excited the fears of the Council ; the Polish Socinians, as
represented by the Bacovian Catechism ; and Hugo Grotius, whose Socinianizing com
ments on Scripture have left his orthodoxy on the vital truths of our Lord's divinity
and satisfaction under a cloud of suspicion.

JOHN BIDDLE, the father of English Socinianism, was born in 1616, at Wotton-under-
Edge. Having made considerable proficiency at the grammar school of his native town,
he received from Lord Berkeley an exhibition of £10, was admitted a student of Mag
dalen Hall, Oxford, and took his degree of A.M. in 1641. While occupied afterwards
as a teacher in the city of Gloucester, he began to divulge his errors by the private
circulation of a small tract, under the title, " Twelve Arguments drawn out of the
Scriptures, wherein the commonly received opinion touching the Deity of the Holy Spirit
is fully Refuted." He was summoned from the county jail, to which the magistrates
had committed him, to answer for his errors before Parliament ; and, on the report of a
committee respecting his case, he was left under the custody of an officer of the House
for five years. During this period he published successively his " Twelve Arguments,"
" A Confession of Faith concerning the Holy Trinity," and " The Testimonies of Ire-
naeus, etc., concerning one God and the Persons of the Holy Trinity." By an atrocious
act passed in 1648, in which it was made a capital offence to publish against the being
and perfections of God, the deity of the Son and of the Spirit, and similar doctrines,
Biddle had well-nigh fallen a martyr to his opinions. The act, however, never came
into operation. He was even in more serious peril after the Long Parliament was dis
solved and its opponents were in power ; for he actually stood a trial for his life in
1655. Cromwell dexterously overruled these proceedings by the summary banishment of
Biddle to Star Castle, in one of the Scilly Islands. He recovered his freedom only to be
cast into prison anew on the Restoration ; and having caught some distemper common
in the jails of that time, he died a prisoner in 1662. He was a man of considerable
attainments as a scholar. "Except his opinions," says Anthony Wood, " there was little
or nothing blameworthy in him;" and his admirer, Toulmin, pronounces him " a pious,
holy, and humble man." His piety must have been of a singular type, if we consider
his views of the divine nature, — views replete with the most profane and revolting
materialism, at that time without a parallel in our literature, and calculated to shock
the best feelings and holiest convictions of his countrymen, while the knowledge of
them inspired continental divines with alarm, as if England were fast lapsing into the
most impious heresies. It can only be from a desire that their cause may have the
honour of having stood, in one instance at least, the test of civil penalties under British

4 PREFATORY NOTE.

rule, that Socinians, who pride themselves on their views of the spirituality of God,
claim affinity with poor Biddle.

Nicolas Estwick replied to him, in an " Examination of his Confession of Faith;
Poole in his " Plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost;" and Francis Cheynel, in hia
" Divine Trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Biddle held to his errors,
and produced in 1654 his "Twofold Catechism," etc.; which the following work of
Owen is designed to review and confute.

The RACOVIAN CATECHISM derives its name from the Polish city of Rakau, the chief
seat of the Polish Unitarians. According to Sandius (Bib. Antitrin. p. 44), the first
Catechism of this name was the work of Gregory Paul; and when Faustus Socinus and
Peter Statorius, junior, were prevented by death from completing their revision of it, ac
cording to an appointment laid upon them by their brethren of the same creed, the task
was devolved on Valentine Smalcius, Jerome Moscorovius, and John Volkelius. The first
part of this statement seems to want authentication, and the original of the Catechism
has been traced to a confession of faith prepared by George Schomann. Remodelled
by the committee mentioned above, it appeared in 1605, and was the first edition of the
Racovian Catechism. It was translated into German in 1608. A reprint of the origi
nal work in London attracted the notice of Parliament, and on the 2d of April 1652, the
Sheriffs of London and of Middlesex were ordered to seize and burn all the copies of it
at the London Exchange and at Palace Yard, Westminster. An English translation of
it, prepared most probably by Biddle, issued from the Amsterdam press in 1652. The
most correct and valuable edition of the Catechism, supplying the latest views of the
old Socinian theology in Poland, is the quarto edition of 1680, printed at Amsterdam
by Christopher Pezold. Modern Socinianism has added nothing to the plausibility with
which the system is invested in this Catechism; and the refutation of its insidious
principles by Owen was a service to the cause of scriptural truth, from which Chris
tianity is yet reaping, and for generations will continue to reap, the highest benefit.

HUGO GEOTIUS is a name which reminds us of a sadly chequered history, diversified
gifts of the highest order, and a strangely piebald and ambiguous creed. We need not
allude to the well-known incidents of his eventful career, — the high offices he held in his
native country, his connection with the disputes between the Gomarists and the Re
monstrants, the retribution under which he became the victim of that appeal to arms
and force which his own party beyond all question had begun, his escape from prison
through the ingenious device of his wife, his residence at Paris, and death at Rostock
in 1645. He had published a work, "De Satisfactione Christi," designed to refute the
errors of Socinianism, but towards the close of his life he prepared a series of anno
tations on Scripture, respecting which it was the charge of Owen that " he left but one
place giving testimony clearly to the deity of Christ." Dr Hammond took him to task
for misrepresenting the Dutch statesman. Owen, both in the " Vindicise Evangelicae"
and in his "Review of the Annotations," advances overwhelming evidence in support of his
assertion. Whether we are to account it morbid candour or indifference to the great
truths of the gospel, Grotius assuredly emitted a most uncertain sound respecting them.
He is claimed alike by Socinians, Arminians, and Papists. The learned Jesuit Peta-
vius said prayers for the repose of his soul ; and Bossuet considered him so near the
truth that "it was wonderful he did not take the last step," — that is, connect himself
with the Church of Rome, — while he affirms, at the same time, that " he stole from the
Church her most powerful proofs of the divinity of Christ." Menage wrote a witty
epigram, to the effect that as many sects claimed the religion of Grotius as towns con
tended for the honour of being the birth-place of Homer. Who would not wish to
rank among the abettors of his own tenets a statesman of such vast attainments and
versatile ability ? It is enough, however, to make us sympathize with Owen, who only
followed the example of all the Protestant divines of Charenton, in repudiating fellow
ship with Grotius, when we peruse the epistles of the latter to the Socinian Crellius. See
page 638. Is the difference between those who hold and those who deny the Godhead
of Christ to be made matter of contemptuous aposiopesis, and to be spoken of as
" quantiUa causa ? " — ED.

TO IHK

EIGHT HONOUEABLE THE COUNCIL OF STATE,

[AND]

TO HIS HIGHNESS,

THE ENSUING

VINDICATION OF THE GLOEY AND DOCTRINE OF THE GEEAT GOD
AND OUR SAVIODB JESUS CHRIST,

WBITTEN UPON THEIR COMMAND,

IS HUMBLY DEDICATED BY ITS OTWOKTHY AUTHOR,

J. O.

TO THB RIGHT WORSHIPFUL, HIS REVEREND, LEARNED, AND WORTHY
FRIENDS AND BRETHREN,

THE HEADS AND GOVERNORS OF THE COLLEGES AND HALLS,

WITH ALL OTHER STUDENTS IN DIVINITY, OR OF THE TRUTH WHICH IS AFTER GODLINESS,
IN THE FAMOUS UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

OF this second address unto you in this kind, whereuntol am encouraged by your
fair and candid reception of my former, I desire you would be pleased to take the
ensuing account. It is now, as I remember, about a year ago since one Mr
Biddle (formerly a master of arts of this university, by which title he still owns
himself) published two little Catechisms, as he calls them, wherein, under sundry
specious pleas and pretences, which you will find discussed in the ensuing trea
tise, he endeavours to insinuate subtilely into the minds of unstable and unlearned
men the whole substance of the Socinian religion. The man is a person whom,
to my knowledge, I never saw, nor have been at all curious to inquire after the
place of his habitation or course of his life. His opposition some years since to
the deity of the Holy Ghost, and now to that of the Father and Son also, is all that
he is known to me by. It is not with his person that I have any contest; he
stands or falls to his own master. His arguments against the deity of the Holy
Ghost were some while since answered by Cloppenburgh, then professor of divinity
at Franeker, in Friesland, since at rest in the Lord ; and, as I have heard, by one
in English. His Catechisms also are gone over the seas; whereof farther mention
must afterward be made. At their first publishing, complaint being given in by
some worthy persons to the Honourable Council against them, as abusive to the
majesty and authority of the word of God, and destructive to many important
truths of the gospel (which was done without any knowledge of mine), they were
pleased to send for me, and to require of me the performance of that work which
is here presented unto you. Being surprised with their request, I laboured to
excuse myself to the utmost, on the account of my many employments in the
university and elsewhere, with other reasons of the like nature, which to my
thoughts did then occur. Not prevailing with them, they persisting in their
command, 1 looked on it as a call from God to plead for his violated truth ; which,
by his assistance, and according as I had opportunity, I was in general alway
resolved to do. Having, indeed, but newly taken off my hand from the plough
of a peculiar controversy about the perseverance of the saints, in the following
whereof I was somewhat tired, the entrance into the work was irksome and bur
densome unto me. After some progress made, finding the searching into and dis
cussing of the important truths opposed of very good use to myself, I have been
carried through the whole (according as I could break off my daily pressing occa
sions to attend unto it) with much cheerfulness and alacrity of mind. And this
was the reason why, finding Mr Biddle came short of giving a fair occasion to the
full vindication of many heads of religion by him oppugned, I have called in to his
assistance and society one of his great masters, namely, Valentinus Smalcius, and
his Catechism (commonly called the Racovian), with the expositions of the places

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 7

of Scripture contended about by the learned Grotius, as also, on several occasions,
the arguments and answers of most of the chief propugners of Mr Biddle's religion.
Now, besides your interest in the truths pleaded for, there are other considera
tions also inducing me to a persuasion that this endeavour of mine will not be
unacceptable unto you. Mr Biddle's Catechisms, as I said, being carried over and
dispersed in sundry places of the United Provinces, the professors of their academies
(who have all generally learned the English tongue, to enable them for the under
standing of the treatises of divinity in all kinds written therein, which they begin
to make use of to the purpose) cry out against them, and professedly undertake
the refutation thereof. Now, certainly it cannot be for our advantage in point
of repute amongst them, that they (who are yet glad of the occasion) should be
enforced to undertake the confutation of a book written by one who styles himself
a master of arts of this university (which they also take notice of), wherein they
are so little concerned, the poison of it being shut up from then- people under the
safe custody of an unknown tongue. Nicolaus Arnoldus, the professor of divi
nity at Franeker, gives an account of this book, as the most subtile insinuation of
the Socinian religion that ever was attempted, and promises a confutation of it.

Maresius, professor at Groningen, a man well known by his works published,
goes farther, and, on the account of these Catechisms, charges the whole nation and
the governors of it with Socinianism ; and, according to the manner of the man,
raises a fearful outcry, affirming that that heresy hath fixed its metropolitical seat
here in England, and is here openly professed, as the head sect in the nation, dis
playing openly the banners of its iniquity : all which he confirms by instancing in
this book of a master of arts of the university of Oxford.1 Of his rashness in
censuring, and his extreme ignorance of the state of affairs here amongst us, which
yet he undertakes to relate, judge, and condemn, I have given him an account,
in a private letter to himself.

Certainly, though we deserved to have these reproaches cast upon us, yet of all
men in the world those who live under the protection and upon the allowance of
the United Provinces are most unmeet to manage them ; their incompetency in
sundry respects for this service is known to all. However, it cannot be denied
but that, even on this account (that it may appear that we are, as free from the
guilt of the calumnious insinuations of Maresius, so in no need of the assistance of
Arnoldus for the confutation of any one arising among ourselves speaking perverse
things to draw disciples after him), an answer from some in this place unto those
Catechisms was sufficiently necessary. That it is by Providence fallen upon the
hand of one more unmeet than many others in this place for the performance of
this work and duty, I doubt not but you will be contented withal; and I am bold to
hope that neither the truth nor your own esteem will too much suffer by my en
gagement herein. Yea (give me leave to speak it), I have assumed the confidence
to aim at the handling of the whole body of the Socinian religion, in such a way
and manner as that those who are most knowing and exercised in these contro
versies may find that which they will not altogether despise, and younger students

i " Prodiit hoc anno in Anglia, authore Johanne Bidello, artium magistro, pneumatomacho, duplex
Catechesis Scripturaria, Anglico idiomate typis evulgata.qua sub nomine religioms Christianas purum

n vder velle -

ocnana a eors, u
trahere post dies caniculares, cum Deo est animus."— Nicol. Arnold, prsef ad lector.

" Necessarium est hoc tristi tempore, quo Sociniana pestis, quam baud immento dixeris omnis im-
pietatis ixpixotot, videtur nunc in vicina Anglia sedem sibi metropolitanam flxisse, nisi quod isthie
facile admittat et bella cruenta, et judicia capitalia severissima, sub quorum umbone crevit. Nam
inter varias hrereses, quibusfelix ilia quondam insula et orthodoxies tenacissima hodie conspurcatur,
tantum eminet Socinianismus, quantum 'lenta solent inter viburna Cupressi;' nee enim amplius ibi
horrenda sua mysteria mussitat in angulis, sed sub dio explicat omnia vexilla suas iniquitatis : non
lonuor incomperta, benevole lector. Modo enim ex Anglia allatus est Anglica lingua conscriptus
Catechismus duplex, major et minor, Londini publice excusus, hoc anno 1654, apud Jac. Coterell, et
Kich. Moone, etc., authore Johanne Bidello, magistro artium Oxoniensi, etc."— Sam. Marea. Hjd. Socin.
Eefut. torn. ii. prsefat. ad lect.

8 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

that whereby they may profit. To this end I have added the Racovian Catechism,
as I said before, to Mr Biddle's; which as I was urged to do by many worthy
persons in this university, so I was no way discouraged in the publishing of my
answer thereunto by the view I took of Arnoldus' discourse to the same purpose,
and that for such reasons as I shall not express, but leave the whole to the judg
ment of the reader.

From thence whence in the thoughts of some I am most likely to suffer, as to
my own resolves, I am most secure. It is in meddling with Grotius' Annotations,
and calling into question what hath been delivered by such a giant in all kinds of
literature. Since my engagement in this business, and when I had well-nigh
finished the vindication of the texts of Scripture commonly pleaded for the demon
stration of the deity of Christ from the exceptions put in to their testimonies by
the Racovian Catechism, I had the sight of Dr Hammond's apology for him, in
his vindication of his dissertations about episcopacy from my occasional animad
versions, published in the preface of my book of the Perseverance of the Saints.
Of that whole treatise I shall elsewhere give an account. My defensative, as to
my dealing with Grotius' Annotations, is suited to what the doctor pleads in his
behalf, which occasions this mention thereof: —

" This very pious, learned, judicious man," he tells us, " hath fallen under some
harsh censures of late, especially upon the account of Socinianism and Popery."
That is, not as though he would reconcile these extremes, but being in doctrinals
a Socinian, he yet closed in many things with the Roman interest; as I no way
doubt but thousands of the same persuasion with the Socinians as to the person
and offices of Christ do live in the outward communion of that church (as they
call it) to this day; of which supposal I am not without considerable grounds and
eminent instances for its confirmation. This, I say, is their charge upon him.
For his being a Socinian, he tells us, " Three things are made use of to beget
a jealousy in the minds of men of his inclinations that way : — 1. Some parcels of
a letter of his to Crellius ; 2. Some relations of what passed from him at his
death; 3. Some passages in his Annotations." It is this last alone wherein I am
concerned; and what I have to speak to them, I desire may be measured and
weighed by what I do premise. It is not that I do entertain in myself any hard
thoughts, or that I would beget in others any evil surmises, of the eternal condi
tion of that man that I speak what I do. What am I that I should judge another
man's servant? He is fallen to his own master. I am very slow to judge of men's
acceptation with God by the apprehension of their understandings. This only I
know, that be men of what religion soever that is professed in the world, if they
are drunkards, proud, boasters, etc., hypocrites, haters of good men, persecutors
and revilers of them, yea, if they be not regenerate and born of God, united to the
head, Christ Jesus, by the same Spirit that is in him, they shall never see God.

But for the passages in his Annotations, the substance of the doctor's plea is,
" That the passages intimated are in his posthuma ; that he intended not to publish
them ; that they might be of things he observed, but thought farther to consider ;"
and an instance is given in that of Col. i. 16, which he interprets contrary to what
he urged it for, John i. 1-3. But granting what is affirmed as to matter of fact
about his Collections (though the preface to the last part of his Annotations will
not allow it to be true'), I must needs abide in my dissatisfaction as to these Anno-
tations, and of my resolves in these thoughts give the doctor this account Of the
Soc.man religion there are two main parts; the first is Photinianism, the latter
1 elagiamsm,— the first concerning the person, the other the grace of Christ Let
us take an eminent instance out of either of these heads: out of the first their deny
ing Christ to be God by nature; out of the latter, their denial of his satisfaction.

absol-

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. 9

For the first, I must needs tell the apologist, that of all the texts of the New
Testament, and Old, whereby the deity of Christ is usually confirmed, and where
it is evidently testified unto, he hath not left any more than one, that I have ob
served, if one, speaking any thing clearly to that purpose. I say, if one, for that
he speaks not home to the business in hand on John i. I shall elsewhere give an
account; perhaps some one or two more may be interpreted according to the ana
logy of that. I speak not of his Annotations on the Epistles, but on the whole
Bible throughout, wherein his expositions given do, for the most part, fall in with
those of the Socinians, and oftentimes consist in the very words of Socinus and
Smalcius, and alway do the same things with them, as to any notice of the deity
of Christ in them. So that I marvel the learned doctor should fix upon one par
ticular instance, as though that one place alone were corrupted by him, when
there is not one (or but one) that is not wrested, perverted, and corrupted, to the
same purpose. For the full conviction of the truth hereof, I refer the reader to
the ensuing considerations of his interpretations of the places themselves. The
condition of these famous Annotations as to the satisfaction of Christ is the same.
Not one text of the whole Scripture, wherein testimony is given to that sacred
truth, which is not wrested to another sense, or at least the doctrine in it con
cealed and obscured by them. I do not speak this with the least intention to cast
upon him the reproach of a Socinian ; 1 judge not his person. His books are
published to be considered and judged. Erasmus, I know, made way for him in
most of his expositions about the deity of Christ; but what repute he hath there
by obtained among all that honour the eternal Godhead of the Son of God, let
Bellarmine, on the one hand, and Beza, on the other, evince. And as I will by
no means maintain or urge against Grotius any of the miscarriages in religion
which the answerer of my animadversions undertakes to vindicate him from, nor
do I desire to fight with the dust and ashes of men; yet what I have said is, if
not necessary to return to the apologist, yet of tendency, I hope, to the satisfaction
of others, who may inquire after the reason of my calling the Annotations of the
learned man to an account in this discourse. Shall any one take liberty to pluck
down the pillars of our faith, and weaken the grounds of our assurance concern
ing the person and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall not we have the bold
ness to call him to an account for so sacrilegious an attempt? With those, then,
who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, I expect no blame or reproach for
what I have endeavoured in this kind; yea, that my good will shall find acceptance
with them, especially if it shall occasion any of greater leisure and abilities farther
and professedly to remark more of the corruptions of those Annotations, I have
good ground of expectation. The truth is, notwithstanding their pompous show
and appearance — few of his quotations (which was the manner of the man) being
at all to his purpose,1 — it will be found no difficult matter to discuss his assertions
and dissipate his conjectures.

For his being a Papist, I have not much to say. Let his epistles (published by
his friends) written to Dionysius Petavius the Jesuit be perused, and you will
see the character which of himself he gives,2 as also what in sundry writings he
ascribes to the pope.

What I have performed, through the good hand of God in the whole, is humbly
submitted to your judgment. You know, all of you, with what weight of busi
ness and employment I am pressed, what is the constant work that in this place

1 " Grotius, in lib. v. De Veritat. Relig. Christian, in notis R. Sel. Aben Ezra et Onkelos adducit.
Sed alienis oculis hie vidit, aut aliena fide retulit (forte authoribus illis aut non intellectis, aut propter
occupationes non inspectis), aut animositati et authoritati in citandis authoribus, et referendis dictis
aut factis, ut ipsi hoc usui venlebat, nimium in scriptis theologicis indulserit." — Voet. Disput. de Ad-
Tent. Messi.

J " Reverende domine, saepe tibi molestus esse cogor Sumpsi hanc ultimam operam, mea

ante hue dicta et famain quoque a ministris allatratam tuendi : in eo scripto si quid est, aut Catholicis
Sententiis discongruens, aut cseteroqui a veritate alienum, de eo aba te viro eruditissimo," etc., "ciijus
judicium plurimi facio moneri percupio."— Epist. Grot, ad Dionys. Petav. Ep. 204.

10 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

is incumbent on me, how many and how urgent my avocations are; the considera
tion whereof cannot but prevail for a pardon of that want of exactness which per-
haps in sundry particulars will appear unto you. With those who are neither
willing nor ahle to do any thing in this kind themselves, and yet make it their
business to despise what is done by others, I shall very little trouble myself. That
which seems, in relation hereunto, to call for an apology, is my engagement into
this work, wherein I was not particularly concerned, suffering in the meantime
some treatises against me to lie unanswered. Dr Hammond's answer to my ani
madversions on his dissertations about episcopacy, Mr Baxter's objections against
somewhat written about the death of Christ, and a book of one Mr Home against
my treatise about universal redemption, are all the instances that I know of which
in this kind may be given. To all that candidly take notice of these things, my
defence is at hand. I do not know that I am more obliged to answer a treatise
written against myself than any other written against the truth, though I am not
particularly named or opposed therein ; nor do I intend to put any such law of
disquietness upon my spirit as to think myself bound to reply to every thing that
is written against me, whether the matter and subject of it be worth the public
ventilation or no. It is neither name nor repute that I eye in these contests : so
the truth be safe, I can be well content to suffer. Besides, this present task was not
voluntarily undertaken by me; it was, as I have already given account, imposed on
me by such an authority as I could not waive. For Mr Home's book, I suppose
you are not acquainted with it; that alone was extant before my last engagement.
Could I have met with any one uninterested person that would have said it de
served a reply, it had not have lain so long unanswered. In the meantime, I
cannot but rejoice that some, like-minded with him, cannot impute my silence to
the weakness of the cause I managed, but to my incompetency for the work of
maintaining it. To Mr Baxter, as far as I am concerned, I have made a return
in the close of this treatise; wherein I suppose I have put an end to that contro
versy. Dr Hammond's defensative came forth much about the time that half
this treatise was finished, and being about a matter of so mean concernment, in
comparison of those weighty truths of the gospel which I was engaged in the
defence of, I durst not desert my station to turn aside thereto. On the cursory
view I have taken of it, I look upon what is of real difference between that learned
person and myself to be a matter of easy despatch. His leaves are much more
soft and gentle than those of Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, and Schlichtingius. If
the Lord in his goodness be pleased to give me a little respite and leisure, I shall
give a farther account of the whole difference between the learned doctor and me,
in such a way of process as may be expected from so slow and dull a person as I
am. In the meantime, I wish him a better cause to manage than that wherein
against me he is engaged, and better principles to manage a good cause on than
some of those in his treatise of schism, and some others. Fail he not in these, his
abilities and diligence will stand him in very good stead. I shall not trouble you
with things which I have advantages other ways to impart my thoughts concern
ing; I only crave that you would be pleased candidly to accept of this testimony of
my respects to you, and, seeing no other things are in the ensuing treatise pleaded
for but such as are universally owned amongst you, that, according to your several
degrees, you would take it into your patronage or use, affording him in his daily
labours the benefit of your prayers at the throne of grace, who is your unworthy
fellow-labourer,

JOHN OWEN.
OXOK. CH. CH. COLL.,
April 1, [1655.]

THE PEEFACE TO THE EEADEB.

To those that labour in the word and doctrine in these nations of Eng
land, Scotland, and Ireland, with all that call upon the name of Jesus
Christ our Lord, John Owen wisheth grace and peace from God our
Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

THAT so mean a person as I am should presume in this public manner to
make address to all those comprised in the title of this epistle, I desire it
may be ascribed to the business I come about and the message that I
bring. It is about your great interest and concernment, your whole por-
tion°and inheritance, your all, that I am to deal with you. If he who
passes by his neighbour's house, seeing a thief breaking up its foundations
or setting fire to its chief materials, will be far from being censured as im
portune and impudent if he awake and call upon the inhabitants, though
every way his betters (especially if all his own estate lie therein also),
although he be not able to carry one vessel of water to the quenching of
it, I hope that, finding persons endeavouring to put fire to the house of
God, which house ye are, and labouring to steal away the whole treasure
thereof, wherein also my own portion doth lie, I shall not be condemned of
boldness or presumption if I at once cry out to all persons, however con
cerned, to take heed that we be not utterly despoiled of our treasure,
though when I have so done, I be not able to give the least assistance to
the defence of the house or quenching of the fire kindled about it. That
of no less importance is this address unto you, a brief discovery of its oc
casion will evince.

The Holy Ghost tells us that we are " built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ;
in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy
temple in the Lord : in whom we are builded together for an habitation of
God through the Spirit," Eph. ii. 20-22. And thus do all they become
the house of Christ " who hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the
hope firm unto the end," Heb. iii. 6. In this house of God there are daily
builders, according as new living stones are to be fitted to their places
therein ; and continual oppositions have there been made thereto, and will
be, " till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of
the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of
the fulness of Christ," Eph. iv. 13. In this work of building are some
employed by Jesus Christ, and will be so to the end of the world, Matt.
xxviii. 19, 20, Eph. iv. 11, 12 ; and some employ themselves at least in a
pretence thereof, but are indeed, to a man, every one like the foolish wo
man that pulls down her house with both her hands. Of the first sort,
" other foundation can no man lay," nor doth go about to lay, " than that
is laid, which is Jesus Christ," 1 Cor. iii. 11 ; but some of them build on
this foundation " gold, silver, and precious stones," keeping fast in the

12 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

•work to the form of " wholesome words," and contending for " the faith
that was once delivered unto the saints."

Others, again, lay on " wood, hay, and stubble," either contending about
"foolish questions," or "vain and unprofitable janglings," or adding to what
God hath commanded, or corrupting and perverting what he hath revealed
and instituted, contrary to the proportion of faith, which should be the
rule of all their prophecy, whereby they discharge their duty of building
in this house. Those with whom I am at present to deal, and concerning
•whom I desire to tender you the ensuing account, are of the latter sort;
such as, not content, with others, to attempt sundry parts of the building,
to weaken its contexture, or deface its comeliness, do with all their might
set themselves against the work [rock ?] itself, the great foundation and
corner-stone of the church, the Lord Jesus, who is " God blessed for ever."
They are those, I say, whom I would warn you of, in whom, of old and of
late, the spirit of error hath set up itself with such an efficacy of pride and
delusion, as, by all ways, means, [and] devices imaginable, to despoil our
dear and blessed Redeemer, our Holy One, of his "eternal power and God
head;" or to reject the eternal Son of God, and to substitute in his room a
Christ of their own, one like themselves, and no more; to adulterate the
church, and turn aside the saints to a thing of naught. If I may enjoy
your patience whilst I give a brief account of them, their ways and endea
vours for the compassing of their cursed ends; of our present concern
ment in their actings and seductions; of the fire kindled by them at our
doors; of the sad diffusion of their poison throughout the world, beyond
•what enters into the hearts of the most of men to imagine, — I shall sub
join thereunto those cautions and directions which, with all humbleness, I
have to tender to you, to guide some, and strengthen others, and stir up
all to be watchful against this great, and I hope the last considerable
attempt of Satan (by way of seduction and temptation) against the foun
dation of the gospel.

Those, then, who of old opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, especially
of the deity of Christ, his person and natures, may be referred to three
heads, and of them and their ways this is the sum : —

The first sort of them may be reckoned to be those who are commonly
esteemed to be followers of SIMON MAGUS, known chiefly by the names
of Gnostics and Valentinians. These, with their abominable figments of
aeons, and their combinations, conjugations, genealogies, and unintelligible
imaginations, wholly overthrowing the whole revelation of God concern
ing himself and his will, the Lord Jesus and the gospel, chiefly, with
their leaders, Marcus, Basilides, Ptolemaeus, Valentinus secundus (all fol
lowing or imitating Simon Magus and Menander), of all others most
perplexed and infected the primitive church : as Irenzeus, lib. i. ; Tertul-
lian, Prsescrip. ad Haeret. cap. xlix; Philastrius, in his catalogue of heretics;
Epiphanius in Panario, lib. i. torn, ii ; and Augustine, in his book of He
resies, l " ad quod vult deus manifesto." To these may be added Tatianus,
Cerdo, Marcion, and their companions (of whom see Tertullian at large,
and Eusebius, in their respective places.) I shall not separate from them
Montanus, with his enthusiastical formal associates ; in whose abominations
it was hoped that these latter days might have been unconcerned, until
the present madness of some, commonly called Quakers, renewed their
follies ; but these may pass (with the Manichees), and those of the like fond
imaginations, that ever and anon troubled the church with their madness
and folly.

1 Epiph. Haer. xlviL

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 13

Of the second rank CERINTHUS is the head, with Judaizing Ebion;1 both
denying expressly the deity of Christ, and asserting him to be but a mere
man; even in the entrance of the Gospel being confounded by John, as is
affirmed by Epiphanius, Hser. li. " Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Eccle-
siasticis de Johanne." The same abomination was again revived by Theo-
dotus, called Coriarius (who, having once denied Christ, was resolved to
do so always); excommunicated on that account by Victor, as Eusebius
relates, Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. ult., where he gives also an account of his
associates in judgment, Artemon, Asclepiodotus, Natalius, etc. ; and the •
books written against him are there also mentioned. But the most noto
rious head and patron of this madness was Paulus Samosatenus, bishop of
Antioch, anno 272 ; of whose pride and passion, folly, followers, assistants,
opposition, and excommunication, the history is extant at large in Euse
bius. This man's pomp and folly, his compliance with the Jews and
Zenobia, the queen of the Palmyrians, who then invaded the eastern
parts of the Roman empire, made him so infamous to all Christians, that
the Socinians do scarce plead for him, or own him as the author of their
opinion. Of him who succeeded him in his opposition to Jesus Christ,
some fifty or sixty years after, namely, Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, they
constantly boast. Of Samosatenus and his heresy, see Euseb. Hist. Eccles.
lib. vii. cap. xxix., xxx., and Hilary, De Synodis ; of Photinus, Socrat.
Eccles. Hist. lib. ii. cap. xxiv., xxv. And with these do our present Soci
nians expressly agree in the matter of the person of Christ.2

To the third head I refer that deluge of ARIANISM, whose rise, con
ception, author, and promoters, advantages, success, and propagation ; the
persecutions, cruelty, and tyranny of the rulers, emperors, kings, and
governors infected with it; its extent and continuance, — are known to all
who have taken care in the least to inquire what was the state of the church
of Grod in former days, that heresy being as it were the flood of water
that pursued the church for some ages. Of Macedonius, Nestorius, and
Eutyches, — the first denying the deity of the Holy Grhost, the second the
hypostatical union of the two natures of Christ, and the last confounding
them in his person, — I shall not need to speak. These by the Socinians of
our days are disclaimed.8

In the second sort chiefly we are at present concerned. Now, to give
an account, from what is come down unto us, by testimonies of good report
and esteem, concerning those named, Theodotus, Paulus, Photinus, and the
rest of the men who were the predecessors of them with whom we have to
do, and undertook the same work in the infancy of the church which these
are now engaged in when it is drawing, with the world, to its period, with
what were their ways, lives, temptations, ends, agreements, differences
among them, and in reference to the persons of our present contest (of
whom a full account shall be given), is not my aim nor business. It hath
been done by others ; and to do it with any exactness, beyond what is
commonly known, would take up more room than to this preface is allotted.
Some things peculiarly seem of concernment for our observation, from the

14 THE PREFACE TO THE READER

time wherein some of them acted their parts in the service of their master.
What could possibly be more desired, for the safeguarding of any truth
from the attempts of succeeding generations, and for giving it a security
above all control, than that, upon public and owned opposition, it should
receive a confirmation by men acted by the Holy Ghost, and giving out
their sentence by inspiration from God ? That, among other important
heads of the gospel (as that of justification by faith and not by works, of
Christian liberty, of the resurrection of the dead), this most glorious truth,
of the eternal deity of the Son of God, underwent an open opposition from
some of them above written, during the life of some of the apostles, before
the writing of the Gospel by John, and was expressly vindicated by him
in the beginning thereof, is acknowledged by all who have in any measure
inquired into and impartially weighed the reports of those days. What
could the heart of the most resolved unbeliever desire more for his satis
faction, than that God should speak from heaven for the conviction of his
folly and ignorance? or what can our adversaries expect more from us,
when we tell them that God himself immediately determined in the con
troversy wherein they are engaged ? Perhaps they think that if he should
now speak from heaven they would believe him. So said the Jews to
Christ, if he would come down from the cross when they had nailed him to
it, in the sight and under the contempt of many miracles greater than the
delivery of himself could any way appear to be. The rich man in torments
thought his brethren would repent if one came from the dead and preached
to them. Abraham tells him, " If they will not hear Moses and the
prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Doubtless, if what is already written be not sufficient to convince our ad
versaries, though God should speak from heaven they would not believe,
nor indeed can, if they will abide by the fundamental principles of their
religion. Under this great disadvantage did the persuasion of the Soci-
nians set out in the world, that Christ is only •vp/Xog aivdguvos, — by nature
no more but a man; so that persons not deeply acquainted with the
methods of Satan and the darkness of the minds of men could not but
be ready to conclude it certainly bound up in silence for ever. But how
speedily it revived, with what pride and passion it was once and again
endeavoured to be propagated in the world, those who have read the stories
of Paulus Samosatenus are fully acquainted, who yupvfi ryj xspahff, blas
phemed the Son of God as one no more than a man. In some space of
time, these men being decried by the general consent of the residue of
mankind professing the name of Jesus Christ, and their abomination de
stroyed by the sword of faith, managed in the hands of the saints of those
days, Satan perceiving himself at a loss and under an impossibility of pre-
valency, whilst the grossness of the error he strove to diffuse terrified all
sorts from having any thing to do therewith, he puts on it, by the help
of Arius and his followers, another gloss and appearance, with a pretence
of allowing Christ a deity, though a subordinate, created, made, divine
nature, which in the fulness of time assumed flesh of the virgin; — this
opinion being, indeed, no less really destructive to the true and eternal
deity of the Son of God than that of theirs before mentioned, who expressly
affirmed him to be a mere man, and to have had no existence before his nati
vity at Bethlehem ; yet having got a new pretence and colour of ascribing
something more excellent and sublime unto him than that whereof we are
all in common partakers, it is incredible with what speedy progress, like
the breaking out of a mighty flood, it overspread the face of the earth.
It is true, it had in its very entrance all the advantages of craft, fraud, and

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 15

subtilty, and in its carrying on, of violence, force, and cruelty, and from
the beginning to its end, of ignorance, blindness, superstition, and profane-
ness, among the generality of them with whom it had to deal, that ever any
corrupt folly of the mind of man met withal. The rise, progress, cruelty,
and continuance of this sect, with the times and seasons that passed with
it over the nations, its entertainment by the many barbarous nations which
wasted, spoiled, and divided among themselves the Roman empire, with
their parting with it upon almost as evil an account as at first they embraced
it, are not, as I said, my business now to discover. God purposing to revenge
the pride, ingratitude, ignorance, profaneness, and idolatry of the world,
•which was then in a great measure got in amongst the professors of Chris
tianity, by another more spiritual, cruel, subtile, and lasting " mystery of
iniquity," caused this abomination of Arianism to give place to the power
of the then growing Eoman antichristian state, which, about the sixth or
seventh century of years since the incarnation of the Son of God, having
lost all church order and communion of the institution of Jesus Christ, fell
into an earthly, political, carnal combination, authorized and animated by
the spirit of Satan, for the ends of superstition, idolatry, persecution, pride,
and atheism; which thereby ever since [have been] vigorously pursued.

With these Arians,1 as was said, do our SOCINIANS refuse communion,
and will not be called after their name : not that their profession is better
than theirs, or that they have much to blame in what they divulge, though
they agree not with them in allowing a pre-existing nature to Christ be
fore his incarnation; but that generation of men having made themselves
infamous to posterity by their wickedness, perjuries, crafts, and bloody
cruelties, and having been pursued by eminent and extraordinary judg
ments from God, they are not willing to partake of the prejudices which
they justly lie under.

From the year 600, for divers ages, we have little noise of these men's
abominations, as to the person of Christ, in the world. Satan had some
thing else to busy himself about.

A design he had in hand that was like to do him more service than any
"" his former attempts. Having, therefore, tried his utmost in open oppo
sition to the person of Christ (the dregs of the poison thus shed abroad
infecting in some measure a great part of the east to this day), by a way
never before heard of, and which Christians were not exercised with nor in
any measure aware of, he subtilely ruins and overthrows all his offices and
• the whole benefit of his mediation, and introduceth secretly a new worship
from that which he appointed, by the means and endeavours of men pre
tending to act and do all that they did for the advancement of his kingdom
and glory. And therefore, whilst the fatal apostasy of the western world,
under the Roman antichrist, was contriving, carrying on, and heightening,
till it came to its discovery and ruin, he stirs not at all with his old engines,
•which had brought in a revenue of obedience to his kingdom in no measure

1 " Ariani Christo divinum cultum non tribuerunt. Atqui longe prsestat Trinitarium
esse quam Christo divinum cultum non tribuere. Imo Trinitarius (meo quidem judicioj
modo alioqui Christ! prsecepta conservet, nee ulla ratione eos persequatur, qui Trinitarh
non sunt sed potius cum ipsis fraterne conferre, ac veritatem inquirere non recuset,
merito Christianus dici debet. Qui vero Christum divina ratione non colit, is nullo
modo Christianus dici potest : Quocirca non est dubitandum, quin Deo minus displi-
cuerunt Homo-ousiani Trinitarii, quam vulgus Arianorum. Quid igitur mirum, si cum
totus fere orbis Christianus in has uuas (ut ita dicam) factiones divisus esset, Deus visi
pnibus et miraculis testari voluisset utram ipsarum viam salutis vel adhuc retineret, vei
jam abjecisset. Adde Arianos acerrime tune persecutes fuisse miseros Homo-ousianos.
idque diu et variis in locis : quare merito se Deus Arianis iratum ostendit." — Socin. ad
\Veik, p. 452.

16 THE PREFACE TO THE READER

proportionable to this, which by this new device he found accruing to him.
But when the appointed time of mercy was come, that God would visit his
people with light from above, and begin to unravel the mystery of ini
quity, whose abominations had destroyed the souls of them that embraced
it, and whose cruelty had cut off the lives of thousands who had opposed
it, by the Reformation, eminently and successfully begun and carried on
from the year 1517, Satan perceiving that even this his great master
piece of deceit and subtilty was like to fail him, and not to do him that
service which formerly it had done, he again sets on foot his first design, of
oppugning the eternal deity of the Son of God, still remembering that the
ruin of his kingdom arose from the Godhead of his person and the efficacy
of his mediation. So, then, as for the first three hundred years of the pro
fession of the name of Christ in the world, he had variously opposed the
Godhead of our blessed Saviour, by Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus
Samosatenus, Marcus, Basilides, Valentinus, Calarbasus, Marcion, Photinus,
Theodotus, and others; and from their dissipation and scattering, having
gathered them all to a head in Arius and his abomination, — which some
times with a mighty prevalency of force and violence, sometimes more sub-
tilely (putting out by the way the several branches of Macedonianism,
Nestorianisrn, Eutychianism, all looking the same way in their tendency
therewith), — he managed almost for the space of the next three hundred
years ensuing; and losing at length that hold, he had spent more than
double that space of time in carrying on his design of the great anti-
christian papal apostasy ; being about the times before mentioned most
clearly and eminently discovered in his wicked design, and being in danger
to lose his kingdom, which he had been so long in possession of, intend
ing if it were possible to retrieve his advantage again, he sets on those men
who had been instrumental to reduce the Christian religion into its pri
mitive state and condition with those very errors and abominations where
with he opposed and assailed the primitive professors thereof, — if they
will have the apostles' doctrine, they shall have the opposition that was
made unto it in the apostles' times : his hopes being possibly the same
that formerly they were (but assuredly Christ will prevent him) ; — for as
whilst the professors of the religion of Jesus Christ were spiritual, and full
of the power of that religion they did profess, they defended the truth
thereof, either by suffering, as under Constantius, Valens, and the Goths
and Vandals, or by spiritual means and weapons; so when they were carnal,
and lost the life of the gospel, yet endeavouring to retain the truth of the
letter thereof, falling on carnal, politic ways for the supportment of it, and
the suppressing of what opposed it, Satan quickly closed in with them, and
accomplished all his ends by them, causing them to walk in all those ways
of law, policy, blood, cruelty, and violence, for the destruction of the truth,
•which they first engaged in for the rooting out of errors and heresies.
" Haud ignota loquor." Those who have considered the occasions and ad
vantages of the bishop of Rome's rise and progress know these things to
be so. Perhaps, I say, he might have thoughts to manage the same or
the like design at the beginning of the Reformation, when, with great craft
and subtilty, he set on foot again his opposition to the person of Christ;
which being the business chiefly under consideration, I shall give some
brief account thereof.

Those who have formerly communicated their thoughts and observations
to us on this subject have commonly given rise to their discourses from
Servetus, with the transactions about him in Helvetia, and the ending of
his tragedy at Geneva. The things of him being commonly known, and

PEEFACE TO THE READER 17

my design being to deal with them in their chief seat and residence,
where, after they had a while hovered about most nations of Europe, they
settled themselves, I shall forbear to pursue them up and down in their
flight, and meet with them only at their nest in Poland and the regions
adjoining. The leaders of them had most of them separated themselves
from the Papacy on pretence of embracing the reformed religion ; and
under that covert were a long time sheltered from violence, and got
many advantages of insinuating their abominations (which they were tho
roughly drenched withal before they left the Papacy) into the minds of
many who professed the gospel.

The first open breach they made in Poland was in the year 1562 (some
thing having been attempted before), most of the leaders being Italians,
men of subtile and serpentine wits. The chief leaders of them were
Georgius Blandrata, Petrus Statorius, Franciscus Lismaninus; all which
had been eminent in promoting the Reformation.1

Upon their first tumultuating, Statorius, to whom afterwards Socinus
wrote sundry epistles, and lived with him in great intimacy, was summoned
to a meeting of ministers, upon an accusation that he denied that the Holy
Spirit was to be invocated. Things being not yet ripe, the man knowing
that if he were cast out by them he should not know where to obtain,
shelter, he secured himself by dissimulation, and subscribed this confes
sion : " I receive and reverence the prophetical and apostolical doctrine,
containing the true knowledge of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
and freely profess that God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought to
be worshipped with the same religion or worship, distinctly or respectively,
and to be invocated, according to the truth of the holy Scripture. And,
lastly, I do plainly detest every heretical blasphemy concerning God the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whether it be Arian, Servetian, Eunomian,
or Stancarian."2 And this confession is to be seen in the acts of that con
vention, under his own hand, to this day ; which notwithstanding, he was
a fierce opposer of the doctrine here professed all his days afterward.

And I the rather mention this, because I am not without too much ground
of persuasion that thousands of the same judgment with this man do at this
day, by the like dissimulation, live and enjoy many advantages both in the
Papacy and among the reformed churches, spreading the poison of their
abominations as they can. This Statorius I find, by the fiequent mention
made of him by Socinus, to have lived many years in Poland, with what
end and issue of his life I know not, nor more of him but what is con
tained in Beza's two epistles to him, whose scholar he had been, when he
seemed to have had other opinions about the essence of God than those
he afterward settled in by the instruction of Socinus.

And this man was one of the first heads of that multitude of men com
monly known by the name of Anabaptists among the Papists (who took
notice of little but their outward worship), who, having entertained
strange, wild, and blasphemous thoughts concerning the essence of God,

) "De tribus in una divina essentia personis anno 1562 controversial!! moverunt, in
Min. Pol. Itali quidam advenae ; praecipui autem assertores contra S. S. Trinitatem fuere,
Georgius Blandrata theologus ac medicus, Petrus Statorius, Tonvillanus, Franciscus
Lismaninus theologiae doctor, quorum tamen ab initio opera reformationis valde fuit
ecclesise Dei procliva."— Hist. Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 84.

1 " Propheticam et apostolicam doctrinam, quae yeram Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti
cognitionem continet, amplector ac veneror, parique religione Deum Patrem, Filium, et
Spiritum Sanctum distincte secundum sacrarum literarum yeritatem colendum. implo-
randumque precibus, libere profiteer. Denique omnem hsereticam de Deo Patre, Filio, et
Bpiritu Sancto blasphemiam, plane detestor, sive Ariana ilia, sive Servetiana, sive Euno-
miana, sive Stancariana."— Act. Eccles. Min. PoL Syn. Pinczov. anno 1559.

VOT. TTTT 2

] 3 PREFACE TO THE READER.

were afterward brought to a kind of settlement by Socinus, in that reli
gion he had prepared to serve them all ; and into his word at last con
sented the whole droves of Essentiators, Tritheists, Arians, and Sabellians,
that swarmed in those days in Silesia, Moravia, and some other parts of

CT O I* m fLIl V

For Blandrata, his story is so well known, from the epistles of Calvin
and Beza, and others, that I shall not insist much upon it. The sum of
what is commonly known of him is collected by Hornbeck.

The records of the synods in Poland of the reformed churches give us
somewhat farther of him ; as doth Socinus also against Weik. Being an
excellent physician, he was entertained, at his first coming into Poland, by
Prince Eadzivil, the then great patron of the reformed religion in those
parts of the world, — one of the same family with this captain-general of
the Polonian forces for the great dukedom of Lithuania, a man of great
success in many fights and battles agains't the Muscovites, continuing the
same office to this day. To him Calvin instantly wrote, that he should
take care of Blandrata, as a man not only inclinable to, but wholly
infected with, Servetianism.1 In that, as in many other things he admo
nished men of by his epistles, that wise and diligent person had the
fate to tell the truth and not be believed. See Calvin's epistles, about the
year 1561. But the man on this occasion being sent to the meeting at
Pinckzow (as Statorius), he subscribes this confession : —

" I profess myself to believe in one God the Father, and in one Lord
Jesus Christ, his Son, and in one Holy Ghost, whereof each is essentially
God. I detest the plurality of Gods, seeing to us there is one only God,
indivisible in essence. I confess three distinct persons, the eternal deity
and generation of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, true and eternal
God, proceeding from them both."2

This did the wretched man think meet to do, that he might preserve the
good esteem of his patron and reserve himself for a fitter opportunity of
doing mischief ; which also he did, obtaining a testimonial from the whole
meeting of his soundness in the faith, with letters to Prince Eadzivil and
to Calvin signifying the same.

Not long after this, by the great repute of his skill in physic, he became
known and physician to Stephen, king of Poland; by whose favour, having
no small liberty indulged him, he became the patron of all the Antitrini-
tarians of all sorts throughout Poland and Transylvania. What books he
wrote, and what pains he took in propagating their cause, hath been de
clared by others. The last epistle of Socinus, in order as they are printed
(it being without date, yet evidently written many years before most of
them that went before it), is to this Blandrata, whose inscription is, "Am-
plissimo clarissimoque viro Georgio Blandratse Stephani invictissimi regis

1 " De Georgio Blandrata, pro singular! suo in ecclesiam Dei amore pramonuit Polonos
Cl. vir Johan. Cal. quinetiam illustrissimum principem palatimim, Vilocensem, Nico-
laum Radzivilium, cujus patrocinio Blandrata turn utebatur. Subplfecerat enim yir
doctus Blandratae ingenium ad Served sententiam esse compositum : itaque serius prin-
cipi suasor fuit, ut sibi ab eo cayeret : sed homo ille facile, technis suis fallacibus, optimo

Erincipi fucum fecit, adeo ut ille iratus Johanni Calvino, Blandratam nomine suo ad
ynodum Pinckzoviensem anno 1561, 25 Jun. habitam, delegaret cum literis, quibus serio
postulabat in causa Blandratts, cum ecclesia, dicebatque male et praecipitanter egisse
Calvinum, quod Blandratam traduceret, et Servetismi notaret." — Regen. Hist. lib. i. p. 85.
2 " Fateor me credere in unum Deum Patrem, et in unum Dominion Jesum Christum
Filium ejus, et in unum Spiritum Sanctum, quorum quilibet est essentialiter Deus. Deo-
rum pluralitatem detestor, cum unus tan turn sit nobis Deus, essentia indivisibilis.
Fateor tres cisse distinctas hypostases ; et seternam Christ! clivinitatem et generationem ;
et Spiritum Sanctum, unuin et uetoiuum Deum, ab utrcque p.ocedentem. ' — Act. Syn.
Pinckzov. anno 156L

PREFACE TO THE READER 19

Polonise, etc., archiatro et conciliario intimo, domino, ac patrono suo
perpetua observantia colendo ; et subscribitur, Tibi in Domino Jesu de-
ditissimus cliens tuus F. S." To that esteem was he grown amongst
them, because of his advantages to insinuate them into the knowledge of
great men, which they mostly aimed at ; so that afterward, when Socinus
wrote his answer about magistrates to Palseologus, in defence of the Kaco-
vians,1 Marcellus Squarcialupus, his countryman, a man of the same persua
sion with him, falls foully on him, that he would venture to do it without
the knowledge and consent of this great patron of theirs.

But though this man by his dissimulation and falsehood thus escaped
censure, and by his art and cunning. insinuation obtained high promotions
and heaped up great riches in the world, yet even in this life he escaped
not the revenging hand of God. He was found at length with his neck
broke in his bed ; by what hand none knoweth. Wherefore Socinus, ob
serving that this judgment of God upon him, as that on Franciscus David
(of which mention shall be made afterward), would be fixed on in the
thoughts of men to the prejudice of the cause which he favoured, con
sidering more what was for his interest than what was decent or conve
nient, decries him for an apostate to the Jesuits before he was so de
stroyed, and intimates that he was strangled in his bed by a kinsman
whom he had made his heir, for haste to take possession of his great
wealth.2

The story I have adjoined at large, that the man's ingenuity and thank
fulness to his friend and patron may be seen. He tells us, that before the
death of Stephen, king of Poland, he was turned from their profession by
the Jesuits. Stephen, king of Poland, died in the year 1588, according to
Helvicus. That very year did Socinus write his answer to Volanus, the
second part whereof he inscribed with all the magnifical titles before men
tioned to Blandrata, professing himself his devoted client, and him the great
patron of their religion ! So that though I can easily believe what he re
ports of his covetousness and treachery, and the manner of his death, yet
as to his apostasy (though possibly he might fall more and more under the
power of his atheism), I suppose the great reason of imputing that to him
was to avoid the scandal of the fearful judgment of God on him in his
death.

For Lismaninus, the third person mentioned, he was accused of Arianism
at a convention at Morden, anno 1553, and there acquitted with a testi
monial.3 But in the year 1561, at another meeting at Whodrislave, he

1 " Dixit heri vir amplissimus Blandrata, librum se tuum contra Palseologum acce-
pisse. Habes tu unum saltern cui sis charissimus, cui omnia debes, qui judicio maxime
polleat: cur tan turn studium,* consiliique ppndus neglexisti? poteras non tantum ejua
censuram absoluti jam libri petere, sed consilium postulare de subeundo non levi labore.
Et possum affirmare senis consilium tibi sine dubio, si petivisti, profuturum fuisse." — Ep.
Marcel. Square, ad Faust. Socin.

2 " Monendum lectorem harum rerum ignarum censui, Blandratam haud paulum ante
mortem suam vivente adhuc Stephano rege Polonise, in illius gratiam, et quo ilium erga
se liberaliorem (ut fecit) redderet, plurimum remisisse de studio sup in ecclesiis nostris
Transilvanicis nostrisque hominibus juvandis : imo ep tandem devenisse ut vix existima-
retur priorem quam tautopere foverat de Deo et Christo sententiam retinere, sed potius
Jesuitis, qui in ea provincia tune temporis Stephani regis^et ejus fratris Christopher!
hand multo ante vitam functi, ope ac liberalitate non mediocriter, florebant, jam adhserere
aut certe cum eis quodammodo colludere. Illud certissimum est, cum ab eo tempore quo
liberalitatem quam ambiebat regis Stephani erga se est expertus, ccepisse quosdam ex
nostris hominibus quos charissimos prius habebat, et suis opibus juvabat spernere ac
deserere, etiam contra promissa et pbligationem suam, et tandem illos penitus deseruisse,
atque omni verte et sincerae pietatis studio valedixisse, et solis pecuniis congerendis in-
tentum fuisse, qusa fortasse justissimo Dei judicio, quod gravissimum exercere solet con
tra tales desertores, ei necem abeo quem suum heredem fecerat conciliarunt." — Socin.
ad Weik. cap. ii. p. 43, 44. * Act. Syn. Morden. anno 1553.

20 PREFACE TO THE HEADER.

was convicted of double dealing, and after that wholly fell off to the Anti-
trinitarians, and in the issue drowned himself in a well.1

And these were the chief settled troublers at the first of the Polonian
reformed churches. The stories of Paulus Alciatus, Valentinus Gentilis,
Bernardus Ochinus, and some others, are so well known, out of the epistles
of Calvin, Beza, Bullingor, Zanchius, with what hath of late from them
been collected by Cloppenburgius, Hornbeek, Maresius, Becmannus, etc.,
that it cannot but be needless labour for me to go over them again. That
which I aim at is, from their own writings, and what remains on record
concerning them, to give a brief account of the first breaking in of Anti-
trinitarianism into the reformed churches of Poland, and their confused
condition before headed by Socinus, into whose name they have since
been all baptized.

This, then, was the state of the churches in those days : The reformed
religion spreading in great abundance, and churches being multiplied every
day in Poland, Lithuania, and the parts adjoining; some tumults having
been raised, and stirs made by Osiander and Stancarus about the essential
righteousness and mediation of Christ (concerning which the reader may
consult Calvin at large) ; many wild and foolish opinions being scattered
up and down, about the nature of God, the Trinity, and Anabaptism, by
many foreigners, sundry being thereby defiled, the opinions of Servetus
having wholly infected sundry Italians: the persons before spoken of,
then living at Geneva and about the towns of the Switzers, that embraced
the gospel, being forced to flee for fear of being dealt withal as Servetus
was (the judgment of most Christian rulers in whose days leading them to
such a procedure, how rightly I do not now determine), scarce any one of
them escaping without imprisonment and abjuration (an ill foundation of
their after profession), they went most of them into Poland, looked on by
them as a place of liberty, and joined themselves to the reformed churches
in those places, and continuing many years in their communion, took the
opportunity to entice and seduce many ministers with others, and to
strengthen them who were fallen into the abominations mentioned before
their coming to them.

After many tergiversations, many examinations of them, many false sub
scriptions, in the year 1562, they fell into open division and separation
from the reformed churches.2 The ministers that fell off with them, besides
Lismaninus and his companions (of whom before), were Gregorius Pauli,
Stanislaus, Lutonius Martinus Crovicius, Stanislaus Paclesius, Georgius
Schomanus, and others, most of whom before had taken good pains in
preaching the gospel. The chief patrons and promoters were Johannes
Miemoljevius, Hieronyraus Philoponius, Johannes Cazaccovius, the one a
judge, the other a captain, the third a gentleman, — all men of great
esteem.

The year that this breach was made, L^ELIUS SOCINUS, then of the age
of thirty-seven years, who laid the foundations that his nephew after built
upon, died in Switzerland, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus in
forms us.* The man's life is known : he was full of Servetianisin, and had

iBtt.Ep.8L

» "Cum diutius non possint in ecclesia delitescere, manifesto schismate Petricoviaj, anno
1562, habito prius colloquio earn scindunt et in sententiam suam pertrahunt plurimos
turn ex ministris, turn ex patronis. Ministri qui partem eorum sequebantur erant in
principio Gregorius Pauli," etc.— Hist. Eccles. Slavon. Regen. lib. i. p. 86.

» "Laelius interim pnematura morte extinctus est ; incidit mors in diem parendinum
id. Mail 1562, setatis vero ejus septimi supra trigesimuin."— Eques. Polou Vita Faust.
Socin. fcenens.

PEEFACE TO THE READER. 21

attempted to draw sundry men of note to his abominations; a man of
great subtilty and cunning, as Beza says of him,1 incredibly furnished for
contradiction and sophism; which the author of the life of Socinus phrases,
he was " suggerendae veritatis minis artifex." He made, as I said, many
private attempts on sundry persons to entice them to Photinianism ; on
some with success, on others without. Of his dealing with him, and the
advantage he had so to do, Zanchius gives an account in his preface to his
book " De Tribus Elohim."2

He was, as the author of the life of Faustus Socinus relates, in a readi
ness to have published his notions and conceptions, when God, by his
merciful providence, to prevent a little the pouring out of the poison by
so skilful a hand, took him off by sudden death; and Faustus himself
gives the same account of the season of his death in an epistle to Dudi-
thius.3

At his death, FAUSTUS SOCINUS, being then about the age of twenty-
three years, seizing upon all his uncle's books, after a while returned into
Italy, and there spent in courtship and idleness in Florence twelve years;
which he afterward grievously lamented, as shall be declared. Leaving
him a while to his pleasure in the court of the great duke, we may make
back again into Poland, and consider the progress of the persons who made
way for his coming amongst them. Having made their separation, and
drawn many after them, they at length brought their business to that
height that they came to a disputation with the reformed ministers at
Petricove* (where the parliament of the kingdom then was) by the permis
sion of Sigismund the king, in the year 1565, whereof the ensuing account
is given by Antonius Posse vine the Jesuit, in Atheis. sui sseculi, cap. xiii.
fol. 15.

The assembly of states was called against the Muscovians. The nobi
lity desiring a conference between the ministers of the reformed churches
and the Antitrinitarians, it wras allowed by Sigismund the king. On the
part of the reformed churches there were four ministers; as many of the
other side came also prepared for the encounter. Being met, after some
discourse the chief marshal of the kingdom, then a Protestant, used these
words, " Seeing the proposition to be debated is agreed on, begin, in the
name of the one God and the Trinity."6 Whereupon one of the opposite
party instantly cried out, " We cannot here say Amen, nor do we know
that God, the Trinity."6 Whereunto the ministers subjoined, "We have
no need of any other proposition, seeing this hath offered itself; for, God
assisting, we will, and are ready to demonstrate that the Holy Ghost doth

1 "Fuitetiam Lselius Socinus Senensis incredibiliter ad contradicendum et varies
nectendos nodos comparatus; nee, nisi post mortem^cognitus hujusmodi perniciosissimis
hseresibus laborare." — Epist. ad Eccles. Orthodox. Ep 81.

2 "Fuit is Lfelms nobili honestaque familia natus, bene Greece et Hebraice doctiis,
vitseque etiam externae inculpatse, quarum rerum causS, mihi quoque intercesserat cum.
illo non vulgaris amicitia ; sed homo fuit plenus diversarum hseresium, quas tamen mild
nunquam proponebat nisi disputandi causa, et semper interrogans, quasi cuperet doceri.
Hanc vero Samosatenianam imprimis annos multos fovit, et quoscunque potuit pertraxit
in eundem errorem ; pertraxit autem non paucos : me quoque ut dixi diversis tentabat
rationibus, si eodem possit errore simul, et asterno exitio secum involvere."— Zanch. Pre-
fat. ad lib. de Tribus Elohim.

3 " Cum amicorum precibus permotus tandem constituisset. atque etiam coepisset, sal
tern inter ipsos. nonnulla in apertum proferre."— Socin. ad Andraeum Dudithium.

* " Cum his Antitrinitariis publicam habuerunt evangelic! disputationem PetricoviiB
in comitiis regni Sigism. 11 Aug., rege permittente, anno 1565. Disputatores fueniut,"
etc. — Regen. ubi supra.

5 "Jam igitur constituta propositione qua de agendum est, in nomine Dei unius et
Trinitatis exordimini."

• " Nos vero hie non dicimus Amen, neque enim nos novimus Deum istum Trinitatem."

22 PKEFACE TO THE KEADEK.

not teach us any other God in the Scripture, but him only who is Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost; that is, one God in trinity."1

This colloquy continued three days. In the first, the ministers who
were the opponents (the other always choosing to answer), by express
texts of Scripture in abundance, confirmed the truth. In the beginning
of their testimonies they appealed to the beginning of the Old and New
Testament;1 and upon both places confounded their adversaries. The
second day the testimonies of the ancient writers of the church were
produced, with no less success. And on the third, the stories of Arius and
some other heretics of old. The issue of the disputation was to the great
advantage of the truth; which Possevine himself cannot deny, though he
affirms a little after that the Calvinists could not confute the Trinitarians,
as he calls them, though they used the same arguments that the Catholics
did, cap. xiv. p. 366.

Possevine confesses that the ministers (as they called themselves) of
Sarmatia and Transylvania, in their book of the False and True ^nowledge
of God, took advantage of the images of the Catholics;3 for whose satisfac
tion, it seems, he subjoins the theses of Thyreus, wherein he labours to
prove the use of those abominable idols to be lawful : of which in the close
of this address.

And this was the first great obstacle that was laid in the way of the
progress of the reformed religion in Poland ; which, by Satan's taking the
advantage of this horrible scandal, is at this day, in those parts of the
world, weak and oppressed. With what power the gospel did come upon
the inhabitants of those countries at the first, and what number of persons
it prevailed upon to forsake their dumb idols, which in Egyptian dark
ness they had long worshipped, is evident from the complaint of Cichovius
the priest, who tells us that " about those times, in the whole parliament
of the dukedom of Lithuania, there were not above one or two Catholics,"
as he calls them, "besides the bishops."* Yea, among the bishops them
selves, some were come off to the reformed churches ; amongst whom Geor-
gius Petrovicius, bishop of Sarmogitia, is reckoned by Diatericus, Chron.
p. 49. Yea, and so far had the gospel influenced those nations, that in the
year 1542, upon the death of King Sigismund II., during the interregnum,
a decree was made in parliament, with general consent, that no prejudice
should arise to any for the protestant religion, but that a firm union should
be between the persons of both religions, popish and protestant; and that
whosoever was chosen king should take an oath to preserve this union and
the liberty of the protestant religion. — Sarricius, Annal. Pol. lib. viii.
p. 403.

1 "Nulla jam alia propositions nobis opus est, cum hsec se obtulerit; nos autem, Deo
volente, et volumus, et parati sumus demonstrate, quod Spiritus Sanctus non alium nos
Deum in Scriptura doceat, nisi solum Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, id est, Deum
unum in trimtate."

" Nos quidem o amici baud difficulter poterimus vobiscum earn rem transigere, nam
ubi primum Biblia aperueritis, et initium veteris et novse legis consideraveritis, statiin
offendetis, id ibi asseri quod vos pernegatis, sic enim Geneseos primo Scriptura loquitur,
Faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram. Nostram, inquit, non meam. Postea vero addit,
Fecit Deus. Novae autem legis initium hoc est, Verbum erat apud Deum, et Verbum erat
J)<w. yidetis ut in veteri lege loquatur unus Deus tanquam de tribus; hie vero quod
Films, Verbum aeternum (nam quod ab initio erat, Eeternum est) erat apud Deum, et erat
idem, non alius, uti vos perperam interpretamini, Deus."

" Mox agunt de imaginibus sanctissimae Trinitatis, non content! simpliciorum quo-
rundam picturas convellere, eas item quae ab Ecclesia Catholica rite usurpatte sunt, scom-
matibus et blasphemis carminibus proscindunt." — Anton. Possev. lib. viii. cap. xv. xvi.

'Profecto illis temporibus res catholicorum fere deplorata erat; cum in amplissinio
senatu vix unus aut alter praeter episcopos reperiebatur."— Casper Cicovius Canon, et
Parock. Sardom. Alloquia.

23

And when Henry, duke of Anjou, brother to Charles IX., king of France,
was elected king of Poland1 (being then a man of great esteem in the
world, for the wars which in France he had managed for the Papists
against the Prince of Conde and the never-enough-magnified Gasper
Coligni,2 being also consenting at least to the barbarous massacre of the
Protestants in that nation), and coming to the church where he was to be
crowned, by the advice of the clergy, would have avoided the oath of pre
serving the Protestants and keeping peace between the dissenters in reli
gion, John Shirli, palatine of Cracovia, took up the crown, and making
ready to go away with it out of the convention, cried out, " Si non jurabis,
non regnabis," — "If you will not swear, you shall not reign;" and thereby
compelled him to take the oath agreed upon.

This progress, I say, had the doctrine of the gospel made in those na
tions, so considerable a portion of the body of the people were won over
to the belief of it, when, through the craft and subtilty of the old enemy
of the propagation thereof, by this apostasy of some to Tritheism, as Gre-
gorius Pauli, of some to Arianism, as Erasmus Johannes, of some to Pho-
tinianism, as Statorius and Blandrata, some to Judaism, as Seidelius (of
whom afterward), the foundation of the whole building was loosened, and,
instead of a progress, the religion has gone backwards almost constantly to
this day. When this difference first fell out, the Papists3 not once moved
a mouth or pen for a long time against the broachers of all the blasphemies
mentioned, hoping that by the breaches made by them on the reformed
churches they should at length be able to triumph over both ; for which
end, in their disputes since with Protestants, they have striven to take
advantage of the apostasy of many of those who had pretended to plead
against the Papacy in behalf of the reformed churches and afterward
turned Antitrinitarians, as I remember it is particularly insisted on in an
English treatise which I saw many years ago, called " Micheus, the Con
verted Jew." And indeed it is supposed that both Paulus Alciatus and
Ochinus turned Mohammedans.*

Having thus, then, disturbed the carrying on of the Keformation, many
ministers and churches falling off to Tritheism and Samosatenianism, they
laid the foundation of their meeting at Racovia ; from which place they
have been most known since and taken notice of in the world. The first
foundation of what they call the "church" in that place was made by a con
fluence of strangers out of Bohemia and Moravia, with some Polonians,"
known only by the name of Anabaptists, but professing a community of

1 " Neque vero hoc juramentum pro tuenda pace evangelica prsestitisset, nisi eura.
Johannes Shirli palatinus Cracovicnsis, vir plenus zeli et inagnse cum potentia authori-
tatis, adegisset ; fertur enim cum rex Henncus jam coronandus esset nee pacem inter
dis^identes se conservaturum jurasset, sed silentio eludere vellet, accepta quae regi turn
praeferebatur corona, exitum ex templo parasse, et in hsec prorupisse verba, 'Si non jurabis,
non regnabis.'" — Hist. Eccles. Slayon. Regen. lib. i p 92.

2 " Condaeo succedit Colignius, vir natalibus et militia clarus, qui nisi regi suo moveret
bellum, dissidii fomes et caput, virtutis heroicae exemplar erat, supra antiques duces,
quos mirata est Grsecia, quos Roma extulit."— Gramond. llist. Gal. lib. vi.

s"Quid interea bonus ille Hosius Cardinalis cuin suis Catholicis ? Nempe ridere
suaviter, et quasi ista nihil ad ipsos pertinerent, aliud quidvis a^ere, imo etiam nostros
undique, ad extinguendum hoc incendium accurentes, probrosis libellis arcessere." —
Bcz. Ep. 81.

4 " Cum Gentilis de Paulo Alciato sodali suo rogaretur, ' factus est ' inquit ' Mahome-
tanus.' "— Bez. Ep. ubi supra.

* " Erant alii quoque Antitrinitarii sectas Anabaptisticas per Bohaomiam et Moravian*
longe lateque serperitis sectatores, qui absurdam illam bonorum communionem, obserya-
turi ultro abjectis suis conditionibus Racoviam se contulerunt. Noyam Hierusalem ibi
loci exstracturi (ut aiebant), ad hanc ineptam societatem plurimos invitabant nobiles,"
etc. — Regtvn. lib. i. p. DO.

24 PREFACE TO THE READER.

goods and a setting up of the kingdom of Christ, calling Racovia, where
they met, the New Jerusalem, or at least professing that there they in
tended to build and establish the New Jerusalem, with other fanatical
follies; which Satan hath revived in persons not unlike them, and caused
to be acted over again, in the days wherein we live, though, for the most
part, with less appearance of holiness and integrity of conversation than
in them who went before.

The leaders of these men, who called themselves their " ministers," were
Gregorius Pauli and Daniel Bielenscius : of whom Bielenscius afterward
recanted ; and Gregorius Tauli, being utterly wearied, ran away from
them as from a hard service,1 and, as Faustus Socinus tells us, in his pre
face to his answer to Palaeologus, in his old age left off all study, and be
took himself to other employments. Such were the persons by whom this
stir began.

This Gregorius Pauli, Schlusselburgius very ignorantly affirms to have
been the head of the Antitrinitarians and their captain,2 when he was a
mere common trooper amongst them, and followed after others, running
away betimes, — an enthusiastical, antimagistratical heretic, pleading for
community of goods. But this Gregory had said that Luther did but the
least part of the work for the destruction of antichrist ; and hence is the
anger of Doctor Conradus, who everywhere shows himself as zealous of
the honour of Luther as of Jesus Christ. So was the man, who had some
divinity, but scarce any Latin at all.

Be pleased now to take a brief view of the state of these men before
the coming of Faustus Socinus into Poland and Transylvania, both these
nations, after the death of Sigismund II., being in the power of the
same family of the Bathori. Of those who professed the reformed religion
and were fallen from the Papacy, there were three sorts, — Lutherans, and
Calvinists, and the United Brethren ; which last were originally Bohemian
exiles, but, professing and practising a more strict way of church order
and fellowship than the other, had very many of the nobility of Poland
and the people joined to their communion. The two latter agreed in all
points of doctrine, and at length came, in sundry meetings and synods,
to a fair agreement and correspondency, forbearing one another wherein
they could not concur in judgment. Now, as these grew up to union
amongst themselves, the mixed multitude of several nations that had joined
themselves unto them in their departure out of Egypt fell a lusting after
the abominations mentioned, and either withdrew themselves or were
thrown out from their communion. ,

At first there were almost as many minds as men amongst them, the
tessera of their agreement among themselves being purely opposition to
the Trinity, upon what principle soever. Had a man learned to blaspheme
the holy Trinity, were it on Photinian, Arian, Sabellian, ' yea, Moham
medan or Judaical principles, he was a companion and brother amongst
them! To this the most of them added Anabaptism, with the necessity
of it, and among the Papists were known by no other name. That they
opposed the Trinity, that they consented not to the reformed churches,
was their religion. For Pelagianism, afterward introduced by Socinus,

' " Quid commemorem animosi illius Gregorii Pauli insalutato suo grege fugam."— Bez.
" Novi isli Ariani exorti sunt in Polonia, Lithuania, et ipsa nimirum Transylvania,
ac eorum caput et ducem se profitetur Gregorius Pauii minister ecclesise Racoviensis,
homo impius, ambitiosus, et in blasphemis effutiendis plane effrsenis ; et ita quidem
jactabundus, ut adscribere sibi, cum aliis Arianis, non -vereatur excisionem antichrist! :
et ejusdem extirpationem ab inns fundamentis : Lutherum enim vix miniiuam partem
revelationis antichrist! reliquisse.'1— Schlusselburg. de Antitrin. p. 3.

ut

-,

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 25

there was little or no mention [of it] among them. In this estate, divided
amongst themselves, notwithstanding some attempts in their synods (for
synods they had) to keep a kind of peace in all their diversities of opinions,
spending their time in disputes and quarrellings, were they when Faustus
Socinus came into Poland; who at length brought them into the condition
wherein they are, by the means and ways that shall be farther insisted on.

And this state of things, considering how not unlike the condition of
multitudes of men is thereunto in these nations wherein we live, hath
oftentimes made me fear that if Satan should put it into the heart of any
person of learning and ability to serve his lust and ambition with craft,
wisdom, and diligence, it were not impossible for him to gather the dis
persed and divided opinionatists of our days to a consent in some such
body of religion as that which Socinus framed for the Polonians. But of
him, his person, and labours, by what ways and means he attained his end,
it may not be unacceptable, from his own and friends' writings, to give
some farther account.

That Faustus Socinus, of Sienna, was born of a good and ancient family,
famous for their skill in the law, in the month of December in the year
1539 ; that he lived in his own country until he was about the age of
twenty years ; that then leaving his country after his uncle Lselius, he
went to Leyden, and lived there three years ; that then, upon the death of
his uncle, having got his books, he returned into Italy, and lived in the
court of the great Duke of Tuscany twelve years, about the close of which
time he wrote his book in Italian, " De Authoritate Sacrse Scripturae;"
that leaving his country he came to Basil in Switzerland, and abode there
three years and somewhat more, — are things commonly known, and so
little to our purpose that I shall not insist upon them.

All the while he was at Basil and about Germany he kept his opinions
much to himself, being intent upon the study of his uncle Lailius' notes, as
the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life confesseth;1 whereunto he added
the Dialogues of Bernardus Ochinus, as himself acknowledged, which
about that time were turned into Latin by Castalio,2 as he professed, to
get money by his labour to live upon (though he pleads that he read
Ochinus' Dialogues in Poland,3 and as it seems not before), and from thence
he was esteemed to have taken his doctrine of the mediation of Christ.

The papers of his uncle Lrelius, of which himself often makes mention,

ere principally his comment upon the first chapter of St John, and some
otes upon sundry texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of
Christ ; among which Faustus extols that abominable corruption of John
viii. 58, of which afterward I shall speak at large, Socin. Respon. ad Eras.
Johan. His comment on the first of John,* Beza tells us, is the most de
praved and corrupt that ever was put forth, its author having outgone all
that went before him in depraving that portion of Scripture.

1 " Illic solidum triennium quod excurrit theologise studio incubuit, paucissimis LaBlii
patrui scriptis et pluribus ab iis relictis notis muftum adjutus est." — Vita Faust. Socin.

2 " Bernardini Ochini Dialqgos transtuli, non ut judex, sed ut translator; et ex ejus-
modi opera ad alendam familiam qusestum facere solitus." — Castal. Apol.

3 " lllud certissimum est, Gregorium Zarnovecium, ministrum ut vocant evangelicun'
qui nominatim adversus disputationem meam de Jesu Ghristo Salyatore libellum Polo-
nice edidit, in ejus prsefatione asserere, me ex Ochini Dialogis annis abhinc circiter tri-
ginta quinque editis sententiam illius mese disputatinnis accepisse, nam certe in Dialogis
illis, quorum non pauca exempla jamdiu in ipsa Polonia mihi videre contigit," etc. —
Faust. Socin. Ep. ad Martinum Vaidovitum Acad. Craco. Professorem.

4 " Lsolius in Samosateni partes clam transiit ; verbo Dei ut ex quodam ejus scripto
nunc liquet adeo vcteratorie et plane versute depravato, ac praascrtiru primo evansrelii
Johann. capite, ut mihi quidem videatur omnes ejus corruptores superasse."— Bez.

26 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

The comment itself is published by Junius, " in defensione sanctse Tri-
nitatis," and confuted by him ; and Zanchius, at large, "De Tribus Elohim,
lib. vi. cap. ii., et deinceps;" Faustus varying something from his uncle in
the carrying on of the same design.

His book, " De Jesu Christo Servatore," he wrote, as the author of his
life assures us, whilst he was in and about Basil, as also many passages in
his epistles and other writings manifest.

About the year 1575 he began it, which he finished about the year
1578, although the book was not printed till the year 1594;1 for upon
the divulging of it (he then living at Cracovia), a tumult was raised against
him by the unruly and disorderly students, wherein he was dragged up
and down and beaten, and hardly escaped with his life ; [against] which
inhumane procedence he expostulates at large in an epistle to Martin
Vaidovita, a professor of the university, by whose means he was delivered
from being murdered. But this fell out in the year 1598, as is evident
from the date of that epistle, four years after the book was printed.

The book is written against one Covet, whom I know by nothing else
but what of his disputes with Socinus is by him published. Socinus con-
fesseth that he was a learned man, and in repute for learning ; 2 and, in
deed, if we may take an estimate of the man from the little that is there
delivered of him, he was a godly, honest, and very learned man, and spake
as much in the cause as might be expected or was needful, before farther
opposition was made to the truth he did defend. Of all the books of him
concerning whom we speak, this his disputation, " De Jesu Christo Serva
tore," is written with the greatest strength, subtilty, and plausibility,
neither is any thing said afterward by himself or the rest of his followers
that is not comprised in it. Of this book he was wont afterward to boast,
as Crellius informs us, and to say, " That if he might have some excellent
adversary to deal withal upon the point, he then would show what could
farther be spoken of the subject."8

This book, at its first coming out, was confuted by Gregorius Zarno-
vecius (as Socinus testifies in his epistle to Vaidovita) in the Polonian lan
guage: which was afterward translated into Latin by Conradus Huberus,
and printed at Franeker, anno 1618; also by one Otho Casmannus; and
thirdly, at large, by Sibrandus Lubbertus, anno 1611, who, together with
his refutation, printed the whole book itself, I hope to no disadvantage
of the truth, though a late apostate to Rome, whom we called here Hugh
Cressey, but is lately commenced B. Serenus Cressey, a priest of the order
of Benedict, and who would have been even a Carthusian (such high honour
did the man aim at), tells us that some of his scholars procured him to do
it, that so they might get the book itself in their hands.* But the book
will speak for itself with indifferent readers, and for its clearness is ex
tolled by Vossius.5 Generally, all that have since written of that subject,

1 " Cum Basiliae degeret ad annum usque 1575 dum lumen sibi exortum, ad alios pro-
pagnre studet, ab amicis ad alienos sensim dilapso disserendi argumento, disputationem
de Jesu Christo Servatore, ore primum inchoatam, postea scripto complexus est : cui anno
1578 summam msmum imposuit." — Eques. Polon. Vita Socin.

1 " Et sane miram est, cum bonis literis ut audio (et ex sermone quern simul babuimus,
atque ex tuis scriptis conjicere potui), sis admodum excultus, te id non vidisse." — Socin.
de Servatore, lib. i. part i. cap. x.

1 " Audivimus ex iis qui fa'miliariter ipso sunt usi, eum significasse, sicut turn jacta-
batur, excellens sibi si contingeret adversarius, qui librum de Jesu Christo Servatore
adoriretur, turn demum se totum hoc argumentum ab origine explicaturum. " — Grell.
Prsofat. Respon. ad Urot., p. 12.

« Exomologesis of Hugh Paulin de Cressey, etc.

* " Post luculentas Sibrandi Lubberti commentationes adversum Socinum editas."—
Voss. Resp. ad Judicium Ravensp.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 27

in theses, common-places, lectures, comments, professed controversies, have
made that book the ground of their procedure.

One is not to be omitted, which is in the hands of all those who inquire
into these things, or think that they are concerned in the knowledge of
them; this is Grotius' "Defensio Fidei Catholicse de Satisfactione Christi,
adversus Faustum Socinum Senensem." Immediately upon the coming
out of that book, animadversions were put forth against it by Harmanus
Ravenspergcrus, approved, as it seems, by our Doctor Prideaux.1

The truth is, those animadversions of Ravenspergerus are many of them
slight, and in sundry things he was mistaken ; whereby his endeavours
were easily eluded by the learned Vossius,2 in his vindication of Grotius
against him. Not that the dissertation of Grotius is free from being liable
to many and just exceptions, partly in things wherein he was mistaken,
partly wherein he failed in what he undertook (whereby many young stu
dents are deluded, as ere long may be manifested), but that his antagonist
had not well laid his action, nor did pursue it with any skill.

However, the interpretations of Scripture given therein by that learned
man will rise up in judgment against many of the annotations which in
his after-comments on the Scripture he hath divulged. His book was
at length answered by Crellius, the successor of Valentinus Smalcius, in
the school and society of Racovia, after which Grotius lived about twenty
years, and never attempted any reply. Hereupon it has been generally
concluded that the man was wrought over to drink in that which he had
before published to be the most destructive poison of the church ;s the be
lief whereof was exceedingly increased and cherished by an epistle of his
to Crellius, who had subtilely managed the man, according to his desire of
honour and regard, and by his annotations, of which we shall have cause
to speak afterward. That book of Crellius has since been at large con
futed by Essenius,* and enervated by a learned and ingenious author in his
" Specimen Refutations Crellii de Satisfactione Christi," published about
the same time with the well-deserving labour of Essenius, in the year 1648.

Most of the arguments and sophisms of Socinus about this business are
refuted and dissolved by David Parseus, in his comment on the Romans,
not mentioning the name of him whose objections they were.

About the year 1608, Michael Gitichius gathered together the sum of
what is argumentative in that book of Socinus against the satisfaction of
.Christ ; which was answered by Ludovicus Lucius,5 then professor at Ham
burg, and the reply of Gitichius confuted and removed out of the way
by the same hand. In that brief rescript of Lucius there is a clear at
tempt to the enervating of the whole book of Socinus, and that with good
success, by way of a logical and scholastical procedure. Only, I cannot
but profess my sorrow that, having in his first answer laid that solid foun
dation of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ, from the eternal nature
and justice of God, whereby it is absolutely impossible that, upon the con
sideration and supposition of sin committed, it should be pardoned without
a due compensation, in his rejoinder to the reply of Gitichius, he closes
with a commonly known expression of Augustine, " That God could, if he

1 " In eosdem exercuit stylum ut Socinianismi suspicionem amoliretur Hugo Grotius,
sed praevaricantcm aliquoties vellicat, in censura, Ravenspergerus." — Prideaux Lecti. de
Justificatione.

* Voss. Resp. ad Judicium Ravensp.

3 " Prresentissinram ecclesias venenum."

* Triumphus Crucis Autore And. Essen.

• * " De gravissima quaestione, utrum (Jhristus pro peccatis nostris justitioe divinse satis-
feceret necne ? scholastica disputatio."

23 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

would, have delivered us without satisfaction, but he would not;"1 so
casting down the most stable and unmovable pillar of that doctrine which
he so dexterously built up in spite of its adversaries.

I dare boldly acquaint the younger students in these weighty points of
the religion of Jesus Christ, that the truth of this one particular, concern
ing the eternal justice of God indispensably requiring the punishment of
sin, being well established (for which end they have not only the consent
but the arguments of almost all who have handled these controversies with
skill and success), will securely carry them through all the sophisms of the
adversaries, and cut all the knots which, with so much subtilty, they en
deavour to tie and cast upon the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ; as
I have in part elsewhere demonstrated.2 From this book also did Smalcius
take the whole of what he has delivered about the death of Christ in his
Racovian Catechism, not adding any thing at all of his own ; which Cate
chism, as it was heretofore confuted by Frederick Bauldwinus, by order
of the university of Wittenburgh, and is by several parcels by many re
moved out of the way, especially by Altingius and Maccovius, so of late it
is wholly answered by Nicolaus Arnoldus,3 now professor at Franeker ;
which coming lately to my hands prevented me from proceeding to a just,
orderly refutation of the whole, as I was intended to do, although I hope
the reader will not find any thing of importance therein omitted.

To close the story of this book of Socinus, and the progress it hath
made in the world: this I dare assure them who are less exercised in
these studies, that though the whole of the treatise hath at first view a
very plausible pretence and appearance, yet there is a line of sophistry
running throu°h it, which being once discovered (as, indeed, it may be
easily felt, with the help of some few principles), the whole fabric of it
will fall to the ground, and appear as weak and contemptible a piece as
any we have to deal withal in that warfare which is to be undertaken for
the truths of the gospel. This also I cannot omit, as to the rise of this
abomination of denying the satisfaction of Christ, that as it seems to have
been first invented by the Pelagians, so in after ages it was vented by
Petrus Abelardus, professor of philosophy at Paris ; of whom Bernard, who
wrote against him, saith, " Habemus in Francia novum de vetere magistro
theologum, qui ab ineunte setate sua in arte dialectica lusit, et nunc in
Scripturis sanctis insanit:" and in his epistle (which is to Pope Innocent)
about him,* he strongly confutes his imaginations about this very business ;
whereupon he was condemned in a council at Rome, held by the same
Innocent.*

This part of our faith being of so great weight and importance, the
great basis and foundation of the church, you will find it at large insisted
on and vindicated in the ensuing treatise.

The author of the life of Socinus tells us (as he himself also gives in
the information) that whilst he abode about Switzerland, at Basil and
Tigurum [Zurich], he had a dispute with Puccius ; which also is since pub
lished. This was before his going into Poland in the year 1578.8

The story of this Puccius, because it may be of some use as to the pre
sent estate of the minds of many in the things of God, I shall briefly give

» " Gitichio itaque de absolute Dei potentia seu P9testate (de qua nulla nobis dubitatio)
mamter blateranti, elegantissimis Augustini verbis respondeo, ' Omnia Deus potuit, si
vohnsset, etc.— Lucius ad Gitich. p. 110.

, * Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Vind. * Religio Sociniani Refutata.

Be™ar(i-. i-P- 190. » Baroni. ad aim. 1140.

Aliam interim cum Francisco Puccio ineunte anno 157s, Ti&uri confecit."— Vita
Faust. Socin.

THE PEEFACE TO THE READER. 29

from Socinus himself (Ep. 3, ad Matt. Radec.), and that as a tremen
dous example of the righteous judgment of God, giving up a person of
a light, unstable spirit to fearful delusions, with a desperate issue. Origi
nally he was a merchant of a good and noble family, but leaving his pro
fession he betook himself to study,1 and for his advantage therein came
hither to Oxford.2 After lie had stayed here until he began to vent some
paradoxes in religion, about the year 1565 (being not able here to prevail
with any to close with him), he went to Basil, where there was a dispute
between him and Socinus, before mentioned; in the issue whereof they
both professed that they could agree in nothing in religion but that there
was a God that made the world. At Basil he maintained universal re
demption and a natural faith, as they then termed it, or an innate power
of believing without the efficacy of the grace of God, for which he was
compelled thence to depart; which doing he returned again into England,
where, upon the same account, he was cast into prison for a season; thence
being released, he went into Holland, from whence by letters he chal
lenged Socinus to dispute, and went one thousand miles (namely, to Cra-
covia in Poland) afterward to make it good. After some disputes there
(both parties condescending to them on very ridiculous conditions), So
cinus seeming to prevail, by having most friends among the judges, as the
other professed, he stayed there a while, and wrote a book, which he
styled " The Shut Bible, and of Elias," wherein he laboured to deny all
ordinances, ministry, and preaching, until Elias should come and restore
all things. His reason was taken from the defection and apostasy of the
church ; wherein, said he, all truth and order was lost, the state of the
church being not again to be recovered, unless some with apostolical au
thority and power of working miracles were immediately sent of God for
that purpose. How far this persuasion hath prevailed with some in our
days, we all know and lament. Puccius at length begins to fancy that he
shall himself be employed in this great restoration that is to be made of
the church, by immediate mission from God ! Whilst he was in expectation
of his call hereunto, there come two Englishmen into Poland, men pre
tending discourse with angels and revelations from God : one of them was
the chief at revelations (their names I cannot learn), the other gave out
what he received, in his daily converse with angels, and the words he heard
from God, about the destruction of all the present frame of the worship
•of God. To these men Puccius joined himself, and followed them to
Prague in Bohemia, though his friends dealt with him to the contrary,
assuring him that one of his companions was a mountebank and the other
a magician ; but being full of his former persuasion of the ceasing of all
ordinances and institutions, with the necessity of their restitution by im
mediate revelation from God, having got companions fit to harden him in
his folly and presumption, he scorned all advice, and away he went to
Prague. No sooner came he thither but his prophet had a revelation by an
angel that Puccius must become Papist, his cheating companion having
never been otherwise. Accordingly he turns Papist ; begs pardon publicly
for his deserting the Roman church, is reconciled by a priest, in whose
society after he had a while continued, and laboured to pervert others to
the same superstition with himself, he died a desperate magician. Have
none in our days been led into the like maze ? hath not Satan led some in

1 " Ex nobili admodum familia, quse etiam trcs cardinales habuit, natus, mercatura
relicta se totum sacrarum literarum studio tradidit."

2 " Quod ut comiuodius facere posset in Angliam se contulit, ibique in Oxoniensi
gymnasio aliquandiu se exercuit," etc.

30

the same circle, setting out from superstition to profaneness, passing
through some zeal and earnestness in religion, rising to a contempt of
ministry and ordinances, with an expectation of revelations and commu
nion with angels ? And how many have again sunk down into Popery,
atheism, and horrible abominations, is known to all in this nation who
think it their duty to inquire into the things of God. I have given this
instance only to manifest that the old enemy of our salvation is not play
ing any new game of deceit and temptation, but such as he hath suc
cessfully acted in former generations. Let not us be ignorant of his
deceits.

By the way, a little farther to take in the consideration of men like-
minded with him last mentioned : of those who denied all ordinances,
and maintained such an utter loss and defection of all church state and
order that it was impossible it should be restored without new apostles,
evidencing their ministry by miracles, this was commonly the issue, that
being pressed with this, that there was nothing needful to constitute a
church of Christ but that there were a company of men believing in Jesus
Christ, receiving the word of God, and taking it for their rule, they de
nied that indeed now there was or could be any faith in Jesus Christ, the
ministers that should beget it being utterly ceased, and therefore it was
advisable for men to serve God, to live justly and honestly, according to
the dictates of the law of nature, and to omit all thoughts of Christ be
yond an expectation of his sending persons hereafter to acquaint the
world again with his worship.

That this was the judgment of Matt. Radecius, his honoured friend,
Socinus informs us;1 though he mollifies his expression, p. 123, ascribing
it to others. Whether many in our days are not insensibly fallen into the
same abominations, a little time will discover. The main of the plea of
the men of this persuasion in those days was taken from the example of the
Israelites under that idolatrous apostasy wherein they were engaged by
Jeroboam. "In the days of Elijah there were," said they, "seven thousand
who joined not with the residue in their false worship and idolatry, but
yet they never went about to gather, constitute, and set up a new church
or churches, but remained in their scattered condition, keeping themselves
as they could from the abominations of their brethren;" — not considering
that there is not the same reason of the Judaical and Christian churches,
in that the carrying on of the worship of God among them was annexed to
one tribe, yea, to one family in that tribe, and chiefly tied to one certain
place, no public instituted worship, such as was to be the bond of com
munion for the church, being acceptable that was not performed by those
persons in that place : so that it was utterly impossible for the godly in
Israel then, or the ten tribes, to set up a new church-state, seeing they
neither had the persons nor were possessed of the place, without which no
such constitution was acceptable to God, as not being of his appointment.
Under the gospel it is not so, either as to the one or other. All places
being now alike, and all persons who are enabled thereunto having liberty
to preach the word in the order by Christ appointed, the erecting of
churches and the celebration of ordinances is recoverable, according to
the mind of God, out of the greatest defection imaginable, whilst unto
any persons there is a continuance of the word and Spirit.

But to proceed with Socinus. Blandrata having got a great interest with
the king of Poland and prince of Transylvania, as hath been declared,
and making it his business to promote the Antitrinitarians, of what sort
1 Ejv ad Radcc. 3, p. 87, 119.

THE PREFACE TO THE EEADER. 31

soever, being in Transylvania, where the men of his own abomination
were exceedingly divided about the invocation and adoration of Jesus
Christ, Franciscus David carrying all before him in an opposition there
unto (of which whole business I shall give a farther account afterward),
he sends for Socinus,1 who was known to them, and, from his dealing with
Puccius; began to be famed for a disputant, to come to him into Transyl
vania, to dispute with and confute Franciscus David, in the end of the
year 1578 ; where what success his dispute had, in the imprisonment and
death of David, shall be afterward related.

Being now fallen upon this controversy, which fell out before Faustus'
going into Poland, before I proceed to his work and business there, I
shall give a brief account of this business which I have now mentioned,
and on which occasion he was sent for by Blandrata into Poland, referring
the most considerable disputes he had about that difference to that place
in the ensuing treatise where I shall treat of the invocation and worship
of Christ.

After way was once made in the minds of men for the farther work of
Satan, by denying the deity of our blessed Lord Jesus, very many quickly
grew to have more contemptible thoughts of him than those seemed to be
willing they should from whose principles they professed, and indeed
righteously, that their mean esteem of him did arise. Hence Franciscus
David, Georgius Enjedinus, Christianus Franken, and sundry others, denied
that Christ was to be tvorshipped with religious worship, or that he might
be invocated and called upon. Against these Socinus, indeed, contended
with all his might, professing that he would not account such as Chris
tians who would not allow that Christ might be invocated and was to be
worshipped; which that he was to be, he proved by undeniable testimonies
of Scripture. But yet when himself came to answer their arguments,
whereby they endeavoured to prove that a mere man (such as on both
sides they acknowledged Christ to be) might not be worshipped with
religious worship or divine adoration, the man, with all his craft and
subtilty, was entangled, utterly confounded, silenced, slain with his own
weapons, and triumphed over, as I shall afterward manifest in the account
which I shall give of the disputation between him and Christianus Franken
about this business: God in his righteous judgment so ordering things,
that he who would not embrace the truth which he ought to have re
ceived should not be able to maintain and defend that truth which he did
receive ; for having, what in him lay, digged up the only foundation of
the religious worship and adoration of Christ, he was altogether unable
to keep the building upright. Nor did this fall out for want of ability in
the man, no man under heaven being able on his false hypothesis to main
tain the worship of Christ, but, as was said, merely by the just hand of
God, giving him up to be punished by his own errors and darkness.

Being hardened in the contempt of Christ by the success they had
against Socinus and his followers, with whom they conversed and dis
puted, some of the men before mentioned stayed not with him at the
affirming of him to be a mere man, nor yet where they began, building on
that supposition that he was not to be worshipped, but proceeded yet far
ther, and affirmed that he was indeed a good man and sent of God, but
yet he spake not by the spirit of prophecy, but so as that whatever was

Francisci Davi-
remcdium qusereiis
prsecipuum factiouis
duccni Franciscum Davidein, a tarn turpi et pernicioso errore abstralieret." — Vita Faust.

Kocin.

32

spoken by him and written by his apostles was to be examined by Moses
and the prophets, whereto if it did not agree it was to be rejected : which
was the sum of the first and second theses of Franciscus David,1 in oppo
sition to which Socinus gave in his judgment in certain antitheses to
Christopher Barthoracus, prince of Transylvania, who had then cast David
into prison for his blasphemy.2

To give a little account, by the way, of the end of this man, with his
contempt of the Lord Jesus : —

In the year 1579, in the beginning of the month of June, he was cast
into prison by the prince of Transylvania, and lived until the end of No
vember.8 That he was cast into prison by the instigation of Socinus him
self and Blandrata, the testimonies are beyond exception ; for this is not
only recorded by Bellarmine and others of the Papists (to whose asser
tions, concerning any adversary with whom they have to do, I confess
much credit is not to be given), but by others also of unquestionable autho
rity.* This, indeed, Socinus denies, and would willingly impose the
odium of it upon others ;fi but the truth is, considering the keenness and
wrath of the man's spirit, and the thoughts he had of this miserable
wretch,6 it is more than probable that he was instrumental towards his
death. The like apology does Smalcius make in his answer to Franzius
about the carriage of the Samosatenians in that business of Franciscus
David; where they accused one another of craft, treachery, bloody cruelty,
treason.7 Being cast into prison, the miserable creature fell into a fre-
netical distemper, through the revenging hand of God upon him, as So
cinus confesseth himself.8 In this miserable condition the devils (saith the
historian) appeared unto him ; whereupon he cried out, " Behold who ex
pect me their companion in my journey,"8 whether really, or in his vexed,
distempered imagination, disordered by his despairing mind, I determine

1 " Homo ille Jes. Nazarenus qui Christus appellatur, non per spiritum propheticum,
sed per Spiritum Sanctum locutus est ; id est, quamvis a Deo legatus fuerit, non tamen
qusecunque vcrha ex ipsius Dei ore provenisse censenda sunt. 2. Hinc fit ut illius et
apostolorum ejus verba, ad Mosaicae legis et aliorum propheticorum oraculorum normam
expendenda sint, et siquid contrarium yel diversum ab his in illis reperitur, aut reperiri
videtur. id aut rejiciendum, aut certe ita interpretandum sit, ut cum Mosis et prophet-
arum doctrina consentiat quas sola morum et divini cultus regula est."

3 " Theses quibus Francisci Davidis sententia de Christ! munere explicatur una cum
antithesibus ecclesiae a Spcino conscriptis, et illustrissimo Transylvaniae principi Chris-
tophero Barthoraep oblatis."

s " Certum est ilium in ipso initio mensis Junii career! inclusum fuisse, et yixisse
usque ad mensem Novembris, nisi vehementer fallor, quo extinctus est." — Socin. ad
Weik. cap. ii. p. 44.

4 " Illud yero notandum, quo_d procurantibus Georgio Blandrata et Fausto Socino, in
Transylvania exuHbus, Franciscus David morti traditus fuit."— Adrian. Regen. Hist.
Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p; 90.

* " Quod si Weikus intelligit damnandi verbo nostros ministros censuisse ilium aliqua
pcena afficiendum, aut vult fallere, aut egregie fallitur : nam certum est, in judicio illo,
cum minister quidam Calvinianus Christophero Principi, qui toti action! interfuit, et
pnefuit, satis longa oratione persuasisset, ut talem hominem e medio tolleret, minitans
iram Dei nisi id fecisset, ministros nostros proprius ad ipsum principem accedentes,
reverenter illi supplicasse, ut miseri hominis misereri vellet, et clementem et benignum
se erga ilium praebere."— Socin. ad Weik. cap. ii. p. 47.

; " Imo plusquam haereticum eum (ecclesiae nostrae) judicaverunt, nam talem homi
nem indignum Christiano nomine esse dixerunt ; quippe qui Christo invocationis cultum
prorsus dctrahendo, et eum curam ecclesiae gerere negando, simul reipsa negaret eum
esse Christum." — Idem ubi supra.

' Kxemplum denique affert nostrorum (thes. 108), quomodo se gesserint in Transyl-
vama, in negotio Francisci Davidis : quomodo semetipsos in actu illo inter se reos agant
vafntias, crudehtatis sanguinariae, proditionis," etc.— Smalc. Refuta Thes de Hypo-
crit. Disp. ix. p. 298.

8 " De phrenesi ista in quam incident, aliquid sane auditum est, non tantum biduo
ante mortem sed pluribus diebus."— Socin. ubi supra.

' "Ecce qui me comitem itineris expectant."— Flor. Raemund, lib. iv cap. xii

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 33

not ; but most certain it is that in that condition he expired, not in tha
year 1580, as Bellarmine, Weik, Raemundus, and some of ours from them,
inform us, but one year sooner, as he assures us who best knew.1 And
the consideration of this man's desperate apostasy and his companions'
might be one cause that about this time sundry of the Antitrinitarians
were converted, amongst whom was Daniel Bielenscius, a man afterward
of good esteem.2

But neither yet did Satan stop here, but improved the advantage given
him by these men to the utter denying of Jesus Christ : for unto the prin
ciple of Christ's being not God, adding another of the same nature, that
the prophecies of the Old Testament were all concerning temporal things,
some amongst them at length concluded that there was no promise of any
such person as Jesus Christ in the whole Old Testament ; that the Messiah
or king promised was only a king promised to the Jews, that they should
have after the captivity, in case they did not offend but walk with God.
" The kingdom," say they, " promised in the Old Testament, is a kingdom
of this world only ; but the kingdom which you assert to belong to Jesus
of Nazareth was a kingdom not of this world, a heavenly kingdom, and
so, consequently, not promised of God or from God;"3 and therefore with
him they would not have aught to do. This was the argument of Martin
Seidelius, in his epistle to Socinus and his companions.

What advantage is given to the like blasphemous imaginations with this,
by such Judaizing annotations on the Old Testament as those of Grotius,
time will evidence. Now, because this man's creed is such as is not to be
paralleled, perhaps some may be contented to take it in his own words,
which are as follow : —

" Caeterum ut sciatis cujus sim religionis, quamvis id scripto meo quod
habetis ostenderim, tamen hie breviter repetam. Et primum quidem doc-
trina de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, ad meam religionem nihil pertinet :
nam rex ille tantum Judseis promissus erat, sicut et bona ilia Canaan. Sic
etiam circumcisio, sacrificia, et reliquse ceremonise Mosis ad me non perti
nent, sed tantum populo Judaico promissa, data, et mandata sunt. Neque
ista fuerunt cultus Dei apud Judaeos, sed inserviebant cultui divino, et ad
cultum divinum deducebant Judseos. Verus autem cultus Dei quern meam
religionem appello, est decalogus, qui est aeterna, et immutabilis voluntas
Dei ; qui decalogus ideo ad me pertinet, quia etiam mihi & Deo datus est,
non quidem per vocem sonantem de crelo, sicut populo Judaico, at per
creationem insita est menti meae ; quia autem insitus decalogus, per cor-
ruptionem naturae humanae et pravis consuetudinibus, aliqua ex parte ob-
scuratus est, ideo ad illustrandum eum, adhibeo vocalem decalogum, qui
vocalis decalogus, ideo etiam ad me, et ad omnes populos pertinet, quia
cum insito nobis decalogo consentit, imo idem ille decalogus est. Haec est

1 " Manifesto in ep sunt decepti, qui hoc anno 1580, accidisse scribunt, cum certissi-
mum sit ea facta fuisse uno anno ante, hoc est, anno 1579." — Socin. ad Weik. p. 44.

* " Duces hujus agminis Anabaptistici, et Antitrinitarii erantGregorius Paulus, Daniel
Bielenscius, et alii, quorum tandem aliqui fanatico proposito relicto, ad ecclesiam evan-
gelicam redierunt, ut Daniel Bielenscius, qui Cracoviae omnium suorum errorum publice
pcenitentiam egit, ibidemque, ecclesiaa Dei commode praefuit." — Adrian. Regen. Hist.
Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 90.

3 " Ita argumentor, quoties regnum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, tale ne-
cesse fuit, ut posteri ejus, in quibus hsec promissio impleri debebat, haberent: sed reg
num mundanum Davidi usque in seculum promissum est, ergo regnum mundanum posteri
Davidis ut haberent necesse est : et per consequens, rex ille, quern prophette ex hac pro-
missione post captivitatem Babylonicam regnaturum promiserunt, perinde ut caeteri
posteri Davidis, mundanum regnum debuit habere. Quod quia Jesus ille non habuit
{non enim regnavit ut David et posteri ejus), sed dicitur habere cceleste regnum, quod est
diversum a mundano regno ; ergo Jesus ille non est rex quern prophetse promiserunt."—
alartin. Seidelius, Ep. 1 ad Sociu.

VOL. XII. 3

34- THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

mea sententia de Messia, seu rege illo promisso, et h?ec est mea religio, quam
coramvobis ingenue profiteer." — Martin. Seidelius Olaviensis Silesius.

To this issue did Satan drive the Socinian principles in this man and
sundry others, even to a full and peremptory denial of the Lord that bought
them. In answering this man, it fell out with Socinus much as it did with
him in his disputation with Franken about the adoration and invocation
of Jesus Christ : for granting Franken that Christ was but a mere man, he
could no way evade his inference thence, that he was not to be invocated ;
so, granting Seidelius that the promises of the Old Testament were all
temporal, he could not maintain against him that Jesus Christ, whose king
dom is heavenly, was the king and Messiah therein promised ; for Faustus
hath nothing to reply but that " God gives more than he promised, of which
no man ought to complain."1 Not observing that the question being not
about the faithfulness of God in his promises, but about the thing pro
mised, he gave away the whole cause, and yielded that Christ was not
indeed the king and Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Of an alike opinion to this of Seidelius was he of whom we spake be
fore, Franciscus David ; who as to the kingdom of Christ delivered him
self to this purpose : *' That he was appointed to be a king of the Jews,
and that God sent him into the world to receive his kingdom, which was
to be earthly and civil, as the kingdoms of other kings ; but the Jews re
jected him and slew him, contrary to the purpose of God, who therefore
took him from them and placed him in a quiet place, where he is not at

• all concerned in any of the things of the church, but is there in God's de-

• sign a king, and he will one day send him again to Jerusalem, there to
take upon him a kingdom, and to rule as the kings of this world do or
have done." — Thes. Francisci David de Adorat. Jes. Christi.

The reminding of these abominations gives occasion, by the way, to
complain of the carnal apprehensions of a kingdom of Christ, which too many
amongst ourselves have filled their thoughts and expectations withal. For
my part, I am persuaded that, before the end of the world, the Lord Jesus,
by his word and Spirit, will multiply the seed of Abraham as the stars of
heaven, bringing into one fold the remnant of Israel and the multitude of
the Gentiles; and that his church shall have peace, after he hath judged
and broken the stubborn adversaries thereof, and laid the kingdoms of the
nations in a useful subserviency to his interest in this world; and that
himself will reign most gloriously, by a spirit of light, truth, love, and holi
ness, in the midst of them : but that he hath a kingdom of another nature
and kind to set up in the world than that heavenly kingdom which he
hath peculiarly exercised ever since he was exalted and made a ruler and
a saviour, that he should set up a dominion over men as men, and rule,
•either himself present or by his substitutes, as in a kingdom of this world,
•which is a kingdom neither of grace nor glory, I know it cannot be as-
.serted without either the denial of his kingdom for the present, or that he
is or hitherto hath been a king (which was the blasphemy of Franciscus
David before mentioned), or the affirming that he hath, or is to have, upon
the promise of God, two kingdoms of several sorts; of which in the whole
word of God there is not the least tittle.

To return : about the end of the year 1579. Faustus Socinus left Tran
sylvania and went into Poland, which he chose for the stage whereon to

1 " Nam quod dicimus, si Deus mundanum regem mundanumque regnum promisit,
coelcstem autem regem, cpeleste regnum reipsa praestitit plus eum pnestitisse quam pro-
misent, recte omnino dicimus, nam qui plus prsestat quam promisit, suis promissis non
modo non stetisse sed ea etiam cumulate praestitisse est agnoscendus."— Socin Ep. ad
Seidelium, p. 20.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 35

act his design.1 In -what estate and condition the persons in Poland and
Lithuania were who had fallen off from the faith of the holy Trinity was
before declared. True it is, that before the coming of Socinus, Blandrata,
\>y the help of Franciscus David, had brought over many of them from
Sabellianism, and Tritheism, and Arianism, unto Samosatenianism, and a
full, plain denial of the deity of Christ.2

But yet with that Pelagian doctrine that Socinus came furnished
withal unto them, they were utterly unacquainted, and were at no small
difference, many of them, about the Deity. The condition of the first
man to be mortal and obnoxious to death, that there was no original sin,
that Christ was not a high-priest on the earth, that he made no satisfaction
for sin, that we are not justified by his righteousness but our own, that the
wicked shall be utterly consumed and annihilated at the last day, with the
rest of his opinions, which afterward he divulged, they were utterly
strangers unto ; as is evident from the contests he had about these things
with some of them in their synods, and by writing, especially with
Niemojevius, one of the chief patrons of their sect.

In this condition of affairs, the man, being wise and subtile, obtained his
purpose by the ensuing course of procedure : —

1. He joined himself to none of their societies, because, being divided
amongst themselves, he knew that by adhering to any one professedly, he
should engage all the rest against him. That which he pretended most
to favour, and for whose sake he underwent some contests, was the
assembly at Eacovia, which at first was collected by Gregorius Paulus, as
hath been declared.

From these his pretence for abstaining was, their rigid injunction of all
to be rebaptized that entered into their fellowship and communion. But
he who made it his design to gather the scattered Antitrinitarians into a
body and a consistency in a religion among themselves saw plainly that
the rigid insisting upon Anabaptism, which was the first principle of some
of them, would certainly keep them at an unreconcilable distance. Where
fore he falls upon an opinion much better suited to his design, and main
tained that baptism was only instituted for the initiation of them who
from any other false religion were turned to the religion of Christ ; but
that it belonged not to Christian societies, nor to them that were born of
Christian parents, and had never been of any other profession or religion,
though they might use it, if they pleased, as an indifferent thing. And
therefore he refused to join himself with the Eacovians, unless upon this
principle, that they would desist for the time to come from requiring any
to be baptized that should join with them. In a short tune he divided
that meeting by this opinion, and at length utterly dissolved them, as to
their old principles they first consented unto, and built the remainder of
them, by the hand of Valentinus Smalcius, into his own mould and frame.

The author of his life sets it forth as a great trial of his prudence, piety,
and patience, that he was repulsed from the society at Eacovia, and that
with ignominy;3 when the truth is, he absolutely refused to join with them,
unless they would at once renounce their own principles and subscribe to

enim liianunua in iransyivamtuu reujeua in queuuuu
V.13V.UU1 i'aviu, utiuiu uiagis, quam superiores illi ut aiunt providum." — Beza, Ep. ^.

3 " Ecclesiis rolonicis, quse solnm Patrem Domini Jesu summum Deum agnoscunt,
publice adjungi ambivit, sed satis acerbe atque diu repulsam_passus est, qua tamen
ignominia minime accensus, vir, non tarn indole quam animi institute, ad patientiam
compositus, nulla uiiquam alienati animi vestigia dedit.." — Vita Faust. Socin.

36 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

his; which is as hard a condition as can be put upon any perfectly con
quered enemy. This himself delivers at large on sundry occasions,
especially insisting on and debating that business in his epistles to Simon
Ronembergius and to Sophia Siemichovia. On this score did he write his
disputation " De Baptismo AqufE," with the vindication of it from the ani
madversions of A. D. (whom I suppose to be Andrew Dudithius), and of
M. C., endeavouring with all his strength to prove that baptism is not
an ordinance appointed for the use of Christians or their children, but
only for such as were converted from Paganism or Mohammedanism; and
this he did in the year 1580, two years after his coming into Poland, as he
declares by the date of the disputation from Cracovia, at the close thereof.
And in this persuasion he was so fixed, and laid such weight upon it, that
after he had once before broken the assembly at Racovia, in his old days
he encourages Valentinus Smalcius,1 then their teacher, to break them
again, because some of them tenaciously held their opinion; and for those
who, as Smalcius informed him, would thereupon fall off to the reformed
churches, he bids them go, and a good riddance of them. By this means,
I say, he utterly broke up, and divided, and dissolved the meeting at
Racovia, which was collected upon the principles before mentioned, that
there remained none abiding to their first engagement but a few old women,
as Squarcialupus2 tells him, and as himself confesses in his answer for them
to Palaeologus.8 By this course of behaviour, the man had these two
advantages:— (1.) He kept fair with all parties amongst them, and pro
voked not any by joining with them with whom they could not agree ; so
that all parties looked on him as their own, and were ready to make him
the umpire of all their differences, by which he had no small advantage of
working them all to his own principles. (2.) He was less exposed to the
fury of the Papists, which he greatly feared (loving well the things of this
world), than he would have been had he joined himself to any visible
church profession ; and, indeed, his privacy of living was a great means -of
his security.

2. His second great advantage was that he was a scholar, and was able
to defend and countenance them against their opposers, the most of them
being miserably weak and unlearned. One of their best defensatives, before
his joining with them, was a clamour against logic and learning, as himself
confesseth in some of his epistles. Now, this is not only evident by experi
ence, but the nature of the thing itself makes it manifest that so it will
be : whereas men of low and weak abilities fall into by-persuasions in
religion, as they generally at first prevail by clamours and all sorts of re
proaches cast on learning and learned men, yet if God in his providence
at any time, to heighten the temptation, suffer any person of learning and
ability to fall in amongst and with them, he is presently their head and

1 " Nam quod mihi objicis me communionem cum fratribus, et Christi fidelibus sper-
nere, nee curare ut cum ipsis ccenam Domini celebrem, respondeo. me postquam in
folomam veni, nihil antiquius habuisse, quam ut me quam maxime fratribus conjun-
gerem, licet invemssem illos in non parvis religionis nostrse capitibus, a me diversura
sentire; quemadmodum multi hodieque sentiunt : quod si nihilominus aquse baptismum
una cum ilhs non accipio, hoc praeterea fit, quia id bona conscientia facere nequeo.
nisi publice ante protestor, me non quod censeam baptismum aquse mihi meique
simi 11 bus, ullo modo necessarium esse, etc."— Ep. ad Sophiam Siemichoviam, feminam
nobilem.— Ep. 11 ad Valent, Smalc. anno 1604.

* " Dico secessionem Racoviensium ac delirium, esse ab ecclesia ratione seiungen-
lum, nisi velis conciliabula quseque amentium anicularum partes ecclesias Christiana}
aut ecclesiam appellare."-Mar. Squarcialup. Ep. ad Faust. Socin. p. 8

Hucaccedit, quod Racovienses isti, sive ccetus Racovien sis, quern tu petis atque
oppugnas, vel non amphus extat, vel ita hodie mutatus est, et in aliam quodammodo
formam versus, ut agnosci uon queat. "-Socin. Pnefat. ad Paiajolog.

THE PREFACE TO THE HEADER. 87

ruler without control. Some testimony hereof our own days have afforded,
and I wish we may not have more examples given us. Now, how far he
availed himself of this advantage, the consideration of them with whom
he had to do, of the esteem they had of his abilities, and the service he
did them thereby, will acquaint us.

[As] for the leaders of them, they were for the most part unlearned, and
so unable to defend their opinions in any measure against a skilful adver
sary. Blandrata, their great patron, was not able to express himself in
Latin, but by the help of Statorius, who had some learning, but no
judgment;1 and therefore, upon his difference with Franciscus David in
Transylvania,' he was forced to send for Socinus out of Helvetia to
manage the disputation with him. And what kind of cattle those were
with whom he had to do at Cracovia as well as Eacovia, is manifest from
the epistle of Simon Eonembergius, one of the leaders and elders of that
which they called their " church," which is printed, with Socinus' answer
unto it. I do not know that ever in my life I saw, for matter and
form, sense and language, any thing so simple and foolish, so ridiculously
senseless and incoherent, unless it were one or two in our own days,
which with this deserve an eminent place " inter epistolas obscurorum
virorum." And therefore Socinus justly feared that his party would have
the worst in disputes, as he acknowledges it befell Licinius in his con
ference with Smiglecius at Novograde,2 and could not believe Ostorodius
that he had such success as he boasted in Germany with Fabritius ;s and
tells us himself a story of some pastors of their churches in Lithuania,
who were so ignorant and simple that they knew not that Christ was to
be worshipped.* What a facile thing it was for a man of his parts, abilities,
and learning, to obtain a kingdom amongst such as these is easily guessed.
He complains, indeed, of his own lost time in his young days, by the
instigation of the devil, and says that it made him weary of his life to
think of it, when he had once set up his thoughts in seeking honour and
glory by being the head and master of a sect, as Ignatius the father of
the Jesuits did5 (with whom, as to this purpose, he is compared all along
by the gentleman that wrote his life) ; yet it is evident that his learning
and abilities were such as easily promoted him to the dictatorship among
them with whom he had to do.

It may, then, be easily imagined what kind of esteem such men as those
would have of so great an ornament and glory of their religion, who at
least was with them in that wherein they dissented from the rest of Christians.

1 " Petro Statorio operam omnem suam fucandis barbarissimi scriptoris Blandrata}
commentis navante." — Beza.

2 " Dolerem equidem mirum in modum si disputatiq ista sic habita fuisset, ut adversarii
affirmant : suspicor tamen nihilominus, quatenus disputationem ab ipsis editam per-
currendo animadvertere ac consequi conjectura potui, Licinii antagonistam arte dispu-
tandi et ipso superiorem esse, et id in ista ipsa disputatione facile plerisque constitisse :
nam etsi (ni fallor) Licinius noster neutiquam in ea hseresi est, in qua non pauci ex
nostris sunt, non esse Christiano homini dandam operam dialecticse," etc.— Ep. ad Bal-
cerovicium, p. 358.

3 " Vpidpvius Ostorodi comes ea ad me scribit, quae vix mihi permittunt ut exitum
disputationis illius eum fuisse credam, quern ipse Ostorodius ad me scripsit." — Ep. ad
Valent. Smalc. quarta, p. 522.

4 " Quod totum fere pondus illius disputationis, adversus eos qui Christum adhuc
ignorare dici possunt, sustinueris, yehementer tibi gratulor : nihil mihi novum fuit, ex
narratione ista perciptre, pastores illos Lithuanicos ab ejusmodi ignoratioiie minime li-
beros deprehensos fuisse." — Ep. 5 ad Smalc.

8 " Me imitari noli, qui nescio quo malo genio ductore, cum jam divinse veritatis
fontes degustassem, ita sum abreptus, ut majorem et potiorem juventutis mese partem,
inanibus quibusdam aliis studiis, imo inertice atque otio dederim, quod cum mecum ipse
repute, reputo autem saepissime, tanto dolore afficior, ut me vivere quodam modo pi-
geat." — Ep. ad Smalc. p. 513.

38 THE PREFACE TO THE READER;

Not only after his death, when they set him forth as the most incom
parable man of his time, but in his own life and to himself, as I know not
what excellent person,1 — that he had a mind suited for the investigation
of truth, was a philosopher, an excellent orator, an eminent divine, that
for the Latin tongue especially he might contend with any of the great
wits of Europe, they told him to his face; such thoughts had they
generally of him. It is, then, no wonder they gave themselves up to his
guidance. Hence Smalcius wrote unto him to consult about the propriety
of the Latin tongue, and in his answer to him he excuses it as a great
crime that he had used a reciprocal relative where there was no occasion
for it.2

And to make it more evident how they depended on him, on this
account of his ability for instructions, when he had told Ostorodius an
answer to an objection of the Papists, the man having afterward forgot it,
sends to him again to have his lesson over once more, that he might re
member it.8

And therefore, as if he had been to deal with school-boys, he would
tell his chief companions that he had found out and discovered such or
such a thing in religion, but would not tell them until they had tried
themselves, and therefore was afraid lest he should through unawares
have told it to any of them ;* upon one of which adventures, Ostorodius
making bold to give in his conception, he does little better than tell him
he is a blockhead.6 Being in this repute amongst them, and exercising
such a dominion in point of abilities and learning, to prevail the more
upon them, he was perpetually ready to undertake their quarrels, which
themselves were not able with any colour to maintain. Hence most of
his books were written, and his disputations engaged in, upon the desire
of one assembly, synod, or company of them or other, as I could easily
manifest by particular instances. And by this means got he no small
advantage to insinuate his own principles ; for whereas the men greedily
looked after and freely entertained the things which were professedly
written in their defence, he always wrought in together therewith some
thing of his own peculiar heresy, that poison might be taken down with
that which was most pleasing. Some of the wisest of them, indeed, as
Niemojevius, discovered the fraud, who, upon his answer to Andrjeus
Yolanus, commending what he had written against the deity of Christ,
which they employed him in, falls foul upon him for his delivering in the
same treatise that Christ was not a priest whilst he was upon the earth ;a

1 " Ad te quod attinet, animo es tu quidem ad omnem doctringe rationem, ac vcritatis
investigationem nato, magna rerum sopliisticarum cognitio, orator summus, et theologus
insignis, linguas tenes maxime Latinam, ut possis cum prsecipuis totius Europss ingeniis
certare."— Marcel. Squarcialup. Ep. ad. Faust. Socin.

" Aliud interim in Latina lingua erratum, gravius quam istud sit, a me est cnmmis-
surn, quod scilicet relative reciproco ubi nullus erat locus usus sum."— Ep. 4 ad Valent.
Smalc. p. 521.

" Memini te mihi hujus rei solutionem cum esses Racovise afierro, scd QUJB mea est
tarditas, vel potius stupiditas, non bene illius recorder."— Ostorod. Ep. ad Faust. Socin
p. 456.

* " Tibi significo me ni fallor invenisse viam quomodo verum esse possit, quod Chria-
tus plane hbere et citra omnem necessitatcm Deo perfectissime obeciiret, et tamen ne-
cessarium omnmo fuerit ut sic obediret ; qua;nam ista via sit, nisi earn ipse per te (ut
plane spero) mveneris, postea tibi aperiam : TO!O enim prius tuum hoc in re et Statorii
ingemum ezpenn, tametsi vereor ne jam earn illi indicaverim."— En. 4 ad Ostorod.
p. 472.

« " De quaestione tibi proposita non bene conjecisti, nee quam affers solutionem ea
probari ullo modo potest."— Ep. 6 ad Ostorod. p. 473.

« " Perlecto scripto tuo contra Volanum animadvert! argumenta ejus satis accurate
a te retutata, locaque scripturoe pleraque examinata, ac elucidata, verum non sine
nuerore (ne quid gravius addarn) incidi inter legendum in quoddam paradoxon, Scripturse

THE PREFACE TO THE READEK 59

which one abominable figment lies at the bottom of his whole doctrine of
the justification of a sinner. The case is the same about his judgment
concerning the invocation of Christ, which was, " That we might do it, but
it was not necessary from any precept or otherwise that so we should do."

And this was nine years after his coming into Poland, as appears from
the date of that epistle; so long was he in getting his opinions to be
entertained among his friends. But though this man were a little wary,
and held out some opposition unto him, yet multitudes of them were taken
with this snare, and freely drank down the poison they loathed, being
tempered with that which they had a better liking to. But this being
discovered, he let the rest of them know that though he was entreated to
write that book by the Eacovians, and did it in their name,1 yet, because he
had published somewhat of his own private opinions therein, they might
if they pleased deny, yea, and forswear, that they were written by their
appointment.

And this was with respect to his doctrine about the satisfaction of Christ^
which, as he says, he heard they were coming over unto ; and it is evi
dent from what he writes elsewhere to Balcerovicius that he begged this
employment of writing against Volanus, it being agreed by them that he
should write nothing but by public consent, because of the novelties which
he broached every day. By this readiness to appear and write in their
defence, and so commending his writing to them on that account, it is
incredible how he got ground upon them, and won them over daily to the
residue of his abominations, which they had not received.

3. To these add, as another advantage to win upon that people, the
course he had fixed on in reference to others ; which was, to own as his,
and of his party of the church, all persons ivhatever that, on any pretence
whatever, opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and forsook the reformed church.
Hence he dealt with men as his brethren, friends, and companions, who
scarcely retained any thing of Christians, some nothing at all ; as Martin
Seidelius, who denied Christ ; with Philip Buccel, who denied all differ
ence of good and evil in the actions of men ; with Eramus Johannes, an
Arian ; with Matthias Radecius, who denied that any could believe in
Christ without new apostles ; — indeed, with all or any sorts of men what
ever that would but join with him, or did consent unto the opposition of
the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the principal work which
he engaged in.

4. Unto these and the like advantages the man added all the arts and
subtilties, all the diligence and industry, that were any way tending to his end.
Some of his artifices and insinuations, indeed, were admirable, though to
them who now review them in cold blood, without recalling to mind the
then state of things, they may seem of another complexion.2

By these and the like means, though he once despaired of ever getting
his opinions received amongst them, as he professeth, yet in the long con
tinuance of twenty-four years (so long he lived in Poland), with the help of
Valentinus Smalcius, Volkelius, and some few others, who wholly fell in

sacrse contrarium ac plane horrendum, dum Christum in morte sua sive in cruce, sacri-
ficium obtulisse pernegas, miror quid tibi in mentem venerit, ut tarn confidenter (ne

rsenesin Andraj Volani responderem, volui ut si quid in hac responsione vobis minus
recte dictum videretur, non bona conscientia tantum, sed jure etiam, earn semper eju-
rare possetia" — Ep. ad Mar. BalceroVicium, p. 336.

...2 " Spero fore, ut, si quid ilium mecum sentire vetet intellexero, facile viam inveniam
eum in meam sententiam pertrahendi.".— Ep. 2 ad Balcerovicium, . ..

40 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

with him, he at length brought them all into subjection to himself, and got
all his opinions enthroned, and his practice taken almost for a rule ; so that
whereas in former days they accused him for a covetous wretch, one that
did nothing but give his mind to scrape up money, and were professedly
offended with his putting money to usury,1 for his full justification, Ostoro-
dius and Voidovius, in the close of the compendium of their religion which
they brought into Holland, profess that their " churches did not condemn
usury, so that it were exercised with moderation and without oppression."2

I thought to have added a farther account, in particular, of the man's
craft and subtilty; of his several ways for the instilling of his principles
and opinions ; of his personal temper, wrath, and anger, and multiplying
of words in disputes ; of the foils he received in sundry disputations with
men of his own antitrinitarian infidelity; of his aim at glory and renown,
expressed by the Polonian gentleman who wrote his life ; his losses and
troubles, which were not many, — with all which, and the like concern
ments of the man and his business in that generation, by the perusal
of all that he wrote, and of much that hath been written against him,
with what is extant of the conferences and disputations, synods and
assemblies of those days, I have some little acquaintance ; — but being not
convinced of much usefulness in my so doing, I shall willingly spare my
labour. Thus much was necessary, that we might know the men arid their
conversation who have caused so much trouble to the Christian world ; in
which work, having the assistance of that atheism and those corrupted
principles which are in the hearts of all by nature, without the infinite
rich mercy of God sparing a sinful world as to this judgment, for his
elect's sake, they will undoubtedly proceed.

Leaving him, then, in the possession of his conquest, Tritheists, Sabel-
lians, Arians, Eunomians, with the followers of Francis David, being all
lost and sunk, and Socinians standing up in the room of them all, looking
a little upon what ensued, I shall draw from the consideration of the per
sons to their doctrines, as at first proposed.

After the death of Socinus, his cause was strongly carried on by those
whom in his life he had formed to his own mind and judgment ; among
whom Valentinus Smalcius, Hieronymus Moscorovius, Johannes Volkelius,
Christopherus Ostorodius, were the chief. To Smalcius he wrote eleven
epistles, that are extant, professing his great expectations of him, extolling
his learning and prudence. He afterward wrote the Racovian Catechism,
compiling it out of Socinus' works ; many answers and replies to and with
Smiglecius the Jesuit, and Franzius the Lutheran ; a book of the divinity
of Christ, with sundry others ; and was a kind of professor among them
at Racovia. The writings of the rest of them are also extant. To him
succeeded Crellius, a roan of more learning and modesty than Smalcius,
and of great industry for the defence of his heresy. His defence of
Socinus against Grotius' treatise, " De Causis Mortis Christi, de Effectu
SS.," his comments and ethics, declare his abilities and industry in his way.
After him arose Jonas Schlichtingius, a man no whit behind any of the
rest for learning and diligence, as in his comments and disputations against
Meisnerus is evident. As the report is, he was burned by the procure
ment of the Jesuits, some four years ago, that they might be sure to have
the blood of all sorts of men found upon them. What advantage they

1 " Aliqui fratrum putant consrerendis pecuniis me nunc prorsus intentum esse." — Ep.
*sd Eliam Arcistrium, p. 407. Vide Ep. ad Christoph. Morstinum. pp. 503-505.

3 " Non simpliciter usuram damnant : modo sequitatis et charitatis regula non Yiole-
tur."— Compend. Religionis Ostorod. et Voidovii.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 41

have obtained thereby time will show. I know that generation of men
retort upon us the death of Servetus at Geneva ; but the case was far
different. Schlichtingius lived in his own country, and conversed with
men of his own persuasion, who in a succession had been so before he was
born : Servetus came out of Spain on purpose to disturb and seduce them
who knew nothing of his abominations. Schlichtingius disputed his heresy
without reproaching or blaspheming God willingly, under pretence of
denying the way and worship of his adversaries : Servetus stuffed all his
discourses with horrid blasphemies. Beza tells us that he called the
Trinity tricipitem Cerberum, and wrote that Moses was a ridiculous impos
tor, Beza, Ep. 1 ; and there are passages cited out of his book of the
Trinity (which I have not seen) that seem to have as much of the devil
in them as any thing that ever yet was written or spoken by any of the
sons of men. If, saith he, Christ be the Son of God, " debuissent ergo
dicere, quod Deus habebat uxorem quandam spiritualem, vel quod solus
ipse masculus femineus aut hermaphroditus, simul erat pater et mater,
nam ratio vocabuli non patitur, ut quis dicatur sine matre pater : et si
Logos filius erat, natus ex patre sine matre; die mihi quomodo peperit cum,
per ventrem an per latus."

To this height of atheism and blasphemy had Satan wrought up the
spirit of the man ; so that I must say he is the only person in the world,
that I ever read or heard of, that ever died upon the account of religion,
in reference to whom the zeal of them that put him to death may be
acquitted. But of these things God will judge. Socinus says he died
calling on Christ ; those that were present say quite the contrary, and
that in horror he roared out misericordia to the magistrates, but nothing
else. But arcana Deo.

Of these men last named, their writings and endeavours for the propa
gation of their opinions, others having written already, I shall forbear.
Some of note amongst them have publicly recanted and renounced their
heresy, as Vogelius and Peuschelius; whose retractations are answered by
Smalcius. Neither shall I add much as to their present condition. They
have as yet many churches in Poland and Transylvania; and have their
superintendents, after the manner of Germany. Regenvolscius tells us that
all the others are sunk and lost, only the Socinians remain;1 the Arians,
Sabellians, David Georgians, with the followers of Franciscus David, being
all gone over to the confession of Socinus : which makes me somewhat
wonder at that of Johannes Lsetus, who affirms that about the year 1619, in
a convention of the states in Poland, those who denied that Christ ought
to be invocated (which were the followers of Franciscus David, Christianus
Franken, and Palseologus) pleaded that the liberty that was granted to
Antitrinitarians was intended for them, and not for the Socinians ; and
the truth is, they had footing in Poland before ever the name of Socinus
was there known, though he afterward insults upon them, and says that
they most impudently will have themselves called Christians when they
are not so.*

But what numbers they are in those parts of the world, how the poison is

' " Denique Socinistae recensendi mihi veniunt quia Fausto Socino, per Poloniam et
Transylvaniam virus suum disseminante, turn nomen turn doctrinam sumpsere ; atque
hi soli, extinctis Farnesianis, Anabaptistis, et Francisci Davidis sectatoribus supersunt ;
homines ad fallaciaset sophismata facti." — Hist. Eccles. Slavon. lib. i. p. 90.

1 " Palseologus praecipuus fuit ex Antesignanis illorum qui Christum nee invocandum,
nee adorandum esse hodie affirmant et interim tamen se Christianos esse impudenter
profitentur, quo vix quidquam scelestius in religione nostra depravanda excogitari posse
existimo."— Socin. ad Weik. Ref. ad cap. iv. cap. ii. p. 42.

42 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

drunk in by thousands in the Papacy, by what advantages it hath [insinu
ated], and continues to insinuate itself into multitudes living in the out
ward profession of the reformed churches, what progress it makes and
what ground it gets in our native country every day, I had Father bewail
than relate. This I am compelled to say, that unless the Lord, in his
infinite mercy, lay an awe upon the hearts of men, to keep them in some
captivity to the simplicity and mystery of the gospel who now strive every
day to exceed one another in novel opinions and philosophical apprehen
sions of the things of God, I cannot but fear that this soul-destroying abo
mination will one day break in as a flood upon us.

I shall only add something of the occasions and advantages that these
men took and had for the renewing and propagation of their heresy, and
draw to a close of this discourse.

Not to speak of the general and more remote causes of these and all
other soul-destroying errors, or the darkness, pride, corruption, and wil-
fulness of men ; the craft, subtilty, envy, and malice of Satan; the just re
venging hand of God, giving men up to a spirit of delusion, that they might
believe lies, because they delighted not in the truth, — I shall only remark
one considerable occasion or stumbling-block at which they fell and drank
in the poison, and one considerable advantage that they had for the pro
pagation of what they had so fallen into.

Their great stumbliiig -block I look upon to be the horrible corruption
and abuse of the doctrine of the Trinity in the writings of the schoolmen,
and the practice of the devotionists among the Papists. With what des
perate boldness, atheistical curiosity, wretched inquiries and babbling, the
schoolmen have polluted the doctrine of the Trinity, and gone off from the
simplicity of the gospel in this great mystery, is so notoriously known that
I shall not need to trouble you with instances for the confirmation of the
observation. This the men spoken of (being the most, if not all of them,
brought up in the Papacy) stumbled at. They saw the doctrine concerning
that God whom they were to worship rendered unintelligible, curious, intri
cate, involved in terms and expressions not only barbarous in themselves,
and not used in Scripture, but insignificant, horrid, and remote from the
reason of men : which, after some struggling, set them at liberty from under
the bondage of those notions; and when they should have gone to "the
law and to the testimony" for their information, Satan turned them aside to
their own reasonings and imaginations, where they stumbled and fell. And
yet of the forms and expressions of their schoolmen are the Papists so zeal
ous, as that whoever departs from them in any kind is presently an antitrini-
tarian heretic. The dealings of Bellarmine, Genebrard, Possevine, and others,
with Calvin, are known. One instance may be taken of their ingenuity :
Bellarmine, in his book, " De Christo," lays it to the charge of Bullinger,
that in his book, " De Scripturse et EcclesiaB Authoritate," he wrote that
there were three persons in the Deity, " non statu, sed gradu, non sub-
sistentia, sed forma, non potestate, sed specie differentes ;" on which he
exclaims that the Arians themselves never spake more wickedly : and yet
these are the very words of Tertullian against Praxeas ; which, I confess,
are warily to be interpreted. But by this their measuring of truth by the
forms received by tradition from their fathers, neglecting and forsaking
the simplicity of the gospel, that many stumbled and fell is most evident.

Schlusselburgius, in his wonted respect and favour unto the Calvinists,
tells us that from them and their doctrine was the occasion administered
unto this new abomination ; also, that never any turned Arian but he was
first a Calvinist: which he seems to make good by a letter of Adam NeuT

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 43

serus, who, as he saith, from a Sacramentarian turned Arian, and after
ward a Mohammedan, and was circumcised at Constantinople. " This man,"
says he, " in a letter from Constantinople to Doctor Gerlachius, tells him
that none turned Arians but those that were Calvinists first ; and therefore
he that would take heed of Arianism had best beware of Calvinism."1 I
am very unwilling to call any man's credit into question who relates a
matter of fact, unless undeniable evidence enforce me, because it cannot
be done without an imputation of the foulest crime ; I shall therefore take
leave to ask, —

1. What credit is to be given to the testimony of this man, who, upon
Conradus' own report, was circumcised, turned Mohammedan, and had
wholly renounced the truth which he once professed ? For my part, I
should expect from such a person nothing but what was maliciously con
trived for the prejudice of the truth ; and therefore suppose he might raise
this on purpose to strengthen and harden the Lutherans against the Cal
vinists, whom he hated most, because that they professed the truth which
he had renounced, and that true knowledge of Christ and his will which
now he hated ; and this lie of his he looked on as an expedient for the
hardening of the Lutherans in their error, and helping them with a stone
to cast at the Calvinists.

2. Out of what kindness was it that this man bare to Gerlachius and his
companions, that he gives them this courteous admonition to beware of
Calvinism ? Is it any honour to Gerlachius, Conradus himself, or any
other Lutheran, that an apostate, an abjurer of Christian religion, loved
them better than he did the Calvinists ? What person this Adam Neu-
serus was, and what the end of him was, we have an account given by
Maresius from a manuscript history of Altingius. From Heidelberg, be
ing suspected of a conspiracy with one Sylvanus, who for it was put to
death, he fled into Poland, thence to Constantinople, where he turned
Mohammedan, and was circumcised, and after a while fell into such miser
able horror and despair, that with dreadful yellings and clamours he died ;
so that the Turks themselves confess that they never heard of a more
horrid, detestable, and tragical end of any man ; whereupon they commonly
called him Satan Ogli, or the son of the devil. And so, much good may it
do Conradus, with his witness.

3. But what occasion, I pray, does Calvinism give to Arianism, that the
one should be taken heed of if we intend to avoid the other ? What of
fence does it give to men inquiring after the truth, to make them stumble
on their abominations ? What doctrine doth it maintain that should pre
pare them for it ? But no man is bound to burden himself with more than
he can carry, and therefore all such inquiries Schlusselburgius took no
notice of.

The truth is, many of the persons usually instanced in as apostates
from Calvinism to Arianism were such as, leaving Italy and other parts
of the pope's dominion, came to shelter themselves where they expected
liberty and opportunity of venting their abomination among the reformed

1 " Notatu vcro dignissimum est hisce novis Arianis ad apostasiam seu Arianismum oc-
casionem fuisse, doctrinam Calvinistarum, id quod ipsi Ariani baud obscure professi
sunt. Recitabo hujus rei exemplum memorabile de Adamo Neusero ante paucos annos EC -
clesise Heidelbcrgensis ad S. S. primario pastore nobilissimo sacramentario. Hie ex Zving-
lianisimo per Arianismum ad Makometismum usque, cum aliis non panels Calvinistis
Constantinopolin circumcisionem jud_aicam recipiens et veritatem agnitam abnegans
progressus est. Hie Adamus sequcntia verba dedit Constantinopol. D. Gerlachio, anno
1574, ' nullus nostro tempore mihi notus factus est Arianus qui non antea fuerit Cal-
vinista. Servetus, etc., igitur qui sibi timet ne incidat in Arianismum, caveat Cal-
Tinismum.' "

44 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

churches, and joined themselves -with them in outward profession, most of
them, as afterward appeared, being thoroughly infected with the errors
against the Trinity and about the Godhead before they left the Papacy,
where they stumbled and fell.

In the practice of the " church," as it is called, wherein they were bred,
they nextly saw the horrible idolatry that was countenanced in abomin
able pictures of the Trinity, and the worship yielded to them ; which
strengthened and fortified their minds against such gross conceptions of
the nature of God as by those pictures were exhibited.

Hence, when they had left the Papacy and set up their opposition to the
blessed Trinity, in all their books they still made mention of those idols
and pictures, speaking of them as the gods of those that worshipped the
Trinity. This instance makes up a good part of their book, " De Falsa et
Vera Cognitione Unius Dei, Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti," written in the
name of the ministers of the churches in Sarmatia and Transylvania ; a
book full of reproach and blasphemies. But this, I say; was another oc
casion of stumbling to those miserable wretches. They knew what thoughts
the men of their communication had of God, by the pictures made of him,
and the worship they yielded to them, — they knew how abhorrent to the
very principles of reason it was that God should be such as by them re
presented ; and therefore set themselves at liberty (or rather gave up them
selves to the service of Satan) to find out another god whom they might
worship.

Neither are they a little confirmed to this day in their errors by sundry
principles which, under the Eoman apostasy, got footing in the minds of
men professing the name of Jesus Christ; particularly, they sheltered
themselves from the sword of the word of God, evidencing the deity of
Christ by ascribing to him divine adoration, by the shield of the Papists'
doctrine, that those who are not gods by nature may be adored, wor
shipped, and invocated.

Now, that to this day the Papists continue in the same idolatry (to
touch that by the way), I shall give you, for your refreshment, a copy of
a verse or two, whose poetry does much outgo the old, —

" 0 crux spes unica !
Auge piis constantiam,
Hoc passionis tern pore,
Reisque dona veniam ;"

and whose blasphemy comes not at all short of it. The first is of Clarus
Bonarus the Jesuit, lib. iii. Amphitrial. Honor, lib. iii. cap. ult. ad Divinam
Hallensem et Puerum Jesum, as followeth: —

" Haereo lac inter meditans, interque cruorem ;

Inter delicias uberis et lateris.
Et dico (si forte oculus super ubera tendo),

Diva parens mammae gaudia posco tuae.
Sed dico (si deinde oculos in vufnera verto),

0 Jesu lateris gaudia malo tui.
Rem scio, prensabo si fas erit ubera dextra,

Laeva prensabo vulnera si dabitur.
Lac matris miscere volo cum sanguine nati ;

Non possem antidoto nobiliore frui.
Vulnera restituant turpem ulceribus mendicum,

Testa cui saniem radere sola potest.
Ubera reficient Ismaelem sitientem,

Quern Sara non patitur, quern neque nutrit Agar,
Ista mihi, ad pestem procul et procul expungendam ;

Ista mihi aa longas evalitura febres.
Ira vomit flammas, fumatque libidinis J^tna;

Suffocare queo sanguine, lacte queo.

THE PREFACE TO THE EEADEU. 45

Livor inexpleta rubigine saevit in artus ;

Detergere queo lacte, cruore queo :
Vanus honos me perpetua prurigine tentat;

Exsaturare queo sanguine, lacte queo.
Ergo parens et nate, meis advertite votis ,

Lac peto, depereo sanguinem, utrumque volo.
0 sitio tamen ! 0 vocem sitis intercludit !

Nate cruore, sitim comprime lacte parens.
Die matri, mcus hie frater sitit, optima mater,

Vis e fonte tuo pro-mere, deque meo.
Die nato, tuus hie frater mi mellee lili

Captivus monstrat vincula, lytron habes.
Ergo Redemptorem monstra te jure vocari,

Nobilior reliquis si tibi sanguis inest.
Tuque parens nionstra, matrem te jure vocari,

Ubera si reliquis divitiora geris.
0 quando lactabor ab ubere, vulnere pascar ?

Deliciisque fruar, mamma latusque tuis."

The other is of Franciscus de Mendoza, in Viridario Utriusque Erudi-
tionis, lib. ii. prob. 2, as ensueth: —

" Ubera me matris, nati me vulnera pascunt

Scilicet haec animi sunt medicina mei,
Nam mihi dum lachrymas amor elicit ubera sugo

Rideat ut dulci mosstus amore dolor.
At me pertentant dum gaudia, vulnera lambo

Ut me Iseta pio mista dolore juvent.
Vulnera sic nati, sic ubera sugo parentis

Securse ut variae sint mihi forte vices.
Quis sine lacte precor, vel quis sine sanguine vivat ?

Lacte tuo genetrix, sanguine nate tuo.
Sit lac pro ambrosia, suavi pro nectare sanguis

Sic me perpetuum vulnus et uber alit."

And this their idolatry is objected to them by Socinus,1 who marvels
at the impudence of Bellarmine closing his books of controversies (as is
the manner of the men of that Society) with " Laus Deo, virginique matri
Marioe," wherein, as he says (and he says it truly), divine honour with
God is ascribed to the blessed Virgin..

The truth is, I see not any difference between that dedication of him
self and his work, by Redemptus Baranzano the priest, in these words,
" Deo, Virginique Matri, Sancto Paulo, Bruno, Alberto, Redempto, Fran
cisco, Clarae, Joannse, Catharinse Senensi, divisque omnibus, quos peculiar!
cultu honorare desidero, omnis meus labor consecratus sit" (Baranzan.
Nov. Opin. Physic. Diglad.), and that of the Athenians, by the advice of
Epimenides, Qto?g 'Affiag, xai'Evguvrris aai A/£u»js, ®su ayvtaffry xai B'svu,
both of them being suitable to the counsel of Pythagoras : —

'AffavKrov; fit* trpu<ra 3-iav;, voftu us 3iaxiirai,

Tifta xai fiSou o,x,cv, 'i<Tli6' rifuns ayauou;.

Tou; r( X.O.TO.^OV'HIU; riSt Saifiavus, 'ivvofta. pi^ui.

Let them be sure to worship all sorts, that they may not miss. And by
these means, amongst others, hath an occasion of stumbling and harden
ing been given to these poor souls.

As to the propagation of their conceptions, they had the advantage not
only of an unsettled time, as to the civil government of the nations of the
world, most kingdoms and commonweals in Europe undergoing in that
age considerable mutations and changes (a season wherein commonly the
envious man hath taken opportunity to sow his tares) ; but also, men bc^

1 " Hoc tantum dicam, cum nuper Bellarmini disputationum primum tomum evol-
verem, supra modum me miratum fuisse, quod ad finem fere smgularum controyer-
eiarum homo alioqui acutus ac sagax ea verba aut curaverit aut permiserit adscribi ;
Laus Deo, virginique matri ; quibus verbis manifesto Virgin! Marise divinus cultus, aut
ex acquo cum ipso Deo, aut certe secundum Deum exhibetur."— Socin. ad Weik. cap. i.
p. 22.

46 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

ing set at liberty from the bondage under which they were kept in the
Papacy, and from making the tradition of their fathers the rule of their
worship and walking, were found indeed to have, upon abiding grounds,
no principles of religion at all, and therefore were earnest in the inquiry
after something that they might fix upon. What to avoid they knew, but
what to close withal they knew not; and therefore it is no wonder if,
among so many (I may say) millions of persons as in those days there
were that fell off from the Papacy, some thousands perhaps (much more
scores) might, in their inquirings, from an extreme of superstition run into
another almost of atheism.

Such was the estate of things and men in those days wherein Socinianism,
or the opposition to Christ of this latter edition, set forth in the world.
Among the many that were convinced of the abominations of Popery before
they were well fixed in the truth, some were deceived by the cunning
sleight of some few men that lay in wait to deceive. What event and issue
an alike state and condition of things and persons hath gone forth unto in
the places and days wherein we live is known to all; and that the saints of
God may be warned by these things is this addressed to them. To what hath
been spoken I had thought, for a close of this discourse, to have given an ac
count of the learning that these men profess, and the course of their studies,
of their way of disputing, and the advantages they have therein ; to have in
stanced in some of their considerable sophisms, and subtile depravations of
Scripture, as also to have given a specimen of distinctions and answers,
which may be improved to the discovering. and slighting of their fallacies in
the most important heads of religion : but being diverted by new and unex
pected avocations, I shall refer these and other considerations unto a pro-
dromus for the use of younger students who intend to look into these con
troversies.

And these are the persons with whom we have to deal, these their ways
and progress in the world. I shall now briefly subjoin some advantages
they have had, something of the way and method wherein they have pro
ceeded, for the diffusing of their poison, with some general preservatives
against the infection, and draw to a close of this discourse.

1. At the first entrance upon their undertaking, some of them made no
small advantage, in dealing with weak and unwary men, by crying out that
the terms of trinity, person, essence, hypostatical union, communication of pro
perties, and the like, were not found in the Scripture, and therefore were
to be abandoned.

With the colour of this plea, they once prevailed so far on the churches
in Transylvania as that they resolved and determined to abstain from the
use of those words ; but they quickly perceived that though the words
were not of absolute necessity to express the things themselves to the
minds of believers, yet they were so to defend the truth from the opposi
tion and craft of seducers, and at length recovered themselves, by the
advice of Beza :* yea, and Socinus himself doth not only grant but prove
that in general this is not to be imposed on men, that the doctrine they
assert is contained in Scripture in so many words, seeing it sufficeth that

l " Nam ego quidem sic statuo, etsi non pendent aliunde rerum sacrarum veritas quam
ab tmico Dei verbo, et sedulo vitanda est nobis omnis xi^m'.it : tamen sublato essen-
tioe et hypostasesan discrimine (quibuscunque tandem verbis utaris) et abrogate e^oW*,
vix ac ne vix quidem istorum blasphemorum fraudes dctegi, et errores satis perspiciie
coargui posse. Ne?o quoque sublatis vocabulis naturse, proprietatis, hypostatica* uni-
onis, limftMTu» xoHai'ittt posse Nestorii et Eutychei blasphemias commode a quoquam re-
felli : qua iu re si forte hallucinor, hoc age, nobis demonstret qui potest. et nos ilium
coronabimus."— Beza, Ep. 81.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. 4f

the thing itself pleaded for be contained therein.1 To which purpose I
desire the learned reader to peruse his words, seeing he gives an instance
of what he speaks somewhat opposite to a grand notion of his disciple,
with whom I have chiefly to do ; yea, and the same person rejects the plea
of his companions, of the not express usage of the terms wherein the doc
trine of the Trinity is delivered in the Scripture, as weak and frivolous.2
And this hath made me a little marvel at the precipitate, undigested con
ceptions of some, who, in the midst of the flames of Socinianism kindling
upon us on every side, would (contrary to the wisdom and practice of all
antiquity, no one assembly in the world excepted) tie us up to a form of
confession composed of the bare words of the Scripture, in the order
wherein they are placed. If we profess to believe that Christ is God
blessed for ever, and the Socinians tell us, " True, but he is a God by
office, not by nature," is it not lawful for us to say, " Nay, but he is God,
of the same nature, substance, and essence with his Father ?" If we shall
say that Christ is God, one with the Father, and the Sabellians shall tell
us, " True, they are every way one, and in all respects, so that the whole
Deity was incarnate" is it not lawful for us to tell them, that though he
be one in nature and essence with his Father, yet he is distinct from him
in person ? And the like instances may be given for all the expressions
wherein the doctrine of the blessed Trinity is delivered. The truth is, we
have sufficient ground for these expressions in the Scripture, as to the
words, and not only the things signified by them : the nature of God we
have, Gal. iv. 8 ; the person of the Father, and the Son distinct from it,
Heb. i. 3 ; the essence of God, Exod. iii. 14, Rev. i. 4 ; the Trinity,
1 John v. 7 ; the Deity, Col. ii. 9.

2. Their whole business, in all their books and disputations, is to take
upon themselves the part of answerers, so cavilling and making exceptions,
not caring at all what becomes of any thing in religion, so they may with
any colour avoid the arguments wherewith they are pressed. Hence al
most all their books, unless it be some few short catechisms and confes
sions, are only answers and exceptions to other men's writings. Beside the
fragments of a catechism or two, Socinus himself wrote very little but of this
kind ; so do the rest. How heavy and dull they are in asserting may be
seen in Yolkelius' Institutions; and here, whilst they escape their adversaries,
they are desperately bold in their interpretations of Scripture, though, for
the most part, it suffices [them to say] that what is urged against them is
not the sense of the place, though they themselves can assign no sense at
all to it. I could easily give instances in abundance to make good this
observation concerning them, but I shall not mention what must neces
sarily be insisted on in the ensuing discourse. Their answers are, " This

1 " Ais igitur adrersus id quod a me affirmatum fuerat, in controversis dogmatibus
probandis, aut improbandis, necesse esse literam adferre, et id quod asseritur manifesto
demonstrate : id quod asseritur manifesto demonstrari debere plane concede ; literam
. autem adferre necesse esse prorsus nego ; me autem jure hoc facere id aperte confirmat,
quod qusedam dogmata in Christi ecclesia receptissima, non solum per expressam literam
non probantur, sed ipsam sibi contrariam habent. Exempli causa, inter cranes fere
Christian! nominis homines receptissimum est, Deum non habere aliqua membra corporis,
ut aures, oculos, nares, brachia, pedes, manus, et tamen non modo expresse et literaliter
(ut vocant) id scriptum in sacris libris non est : verum etiam contrariuta omnino passim
diserte scriptum extat." — Faust. Socin. Frag. Disput. de Ador. Christi cum Fran. David,
cap. x. p. 59.

1 " Simile quod aflers de yocabulis " essentice," et "personarum" a nobis repudiatis, quia
in sanctis literis non inveniantur, non est admittenaum, nemini enim vere cordato per-
euadebitis id quod per ea vocabuli adversarii significare voluerunt, idcirco repudiandum.
esse, quia ipsa vocabula scripta non inveniantur, imo quicunque ex nobis Lac ratione
sunt usi, suspectam apud nonnullos, alioquin ingenio, et eruditione prosstantes viros,
causam uostram reddiuere."— Idem.-ubi sup. p. 62.

48 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

may otherwise be expounded ;" " It may otherwise be understood ;" " Tho
word may have another signification in another place."

3. The greatest triumphs which they set up in their own conceits ave,
when by any ways they possess themselves of any usual maxim that
passes current amongst men, being applied to finite, limited, created things,
or any acknowledged notion in philosophy, and apply it to the infinite,
uncreated, essence of God; than which course of proceeding nothing, indeed,
can be more absurd, foolish, and contrary to sound reason. That God
and man, the Creator and creature, that which is absolutely infinite and
independent, and that which is finite, limited, and dependent, should be
measured by the same rules, notions, and conceptions, unless it be by way
of eminent analogy, which will not further their design at all, is most fond
and senseless. And this one observation is sufficient to arm us against all
their profound disputes about " essence," " personality," and the like.

4. Generally, as we said, in the pursuit of their design and carrying it
on, they begin in exclaiming against the usual words wherein the doctrines
they oppose are taught and delivered. " They are not Scripture expressions,"
etc. ; " For the things themselves, they do not oppose them, but they think
them not so necessary as some suppose," etc. Having got some ground by
this on the minds of men, great stress is immediately laid on this, " That a
man may be saved though he believe not the doctrine of the Trinity, the
satisfaction of Christ, etc., so that he live holily, and yield obedience to the
precepts of Christ ; so that it is mere madness and folly to break love and
communion about such differences." By this engine I knew, not long since,
a choice society of Christians, through the cunning sleight of one lying
in wait to deceive, disturbed, divided, broken, and in no small part of it
infected. If they once get this advantage, and have thereby weakened
the love and valuation of the truth with any, they generally, through the
righteous judgment of God in giving up men of light and vain spiiits to
the imaginations of their own hearts, overthrow their faith, and lead them
captive at their pleasure.

5. I thought to have insisted, in particular, on their particular ways of
insinuating their abominations, of the baits they lay, the devices they have,
their high pretences to reason, and holiness in their lives, or honesty; as also, to
have evinced, by undeniable evidences, that there are thousands in the
Papacy and among the Reformed Churches that are wholly baptized into
their vile opinions and infidelity, though, for the love of their temporal en
joyments, which are better to them than their religion, they profess it not ;
as also, how this persuasion of theirs hath been the great door whereby the
flood of atheism which is broken in upon the world, and which is almost
always professed by them who would be accounted the wits of the times, is
come in upon the nations; farther, to have given general answers and dis
tinctions applicable to the most if not all of the considerable arguments
and objections wherewith they impugn the truth : but referring all these
to my general considerations for the study of controversies in divinity,
with some observations that may be preservatives against their poison,
I shall speedily acquit you from the trouble of this address. Give me
leave, then, in the last place (though unfit and unworthy), to give some
general cautions to my fellow -labourers and students in divinity for the
freeing our souls from being tainted with these abominations, and I have
done : —

1. Hold fast the form of wholesome words and sound doctrine : knovr
that there are other ways of peace and accommodation with dissenters
than by letting go the least particle of truth. When men would accommo-

THE PREFACE TO THE READER. , ' 49

date their own hearts to love and peace, they must not double with their
souls, and accommodate the truth of the gospel to other men's imagina
tions. Perhaps some will suggest great things of going a middle way in
divinity, between dissenters ; but what is the issue, for the most part, of
such proposals ? After they have, by their middle way, raised no less
contentions than was before between the extremes (yea, when things
before were in some good measure allayed), the accommodators them
selves, through an ambitious desire to make good and defend their own
expedients, are insensibly carried over to the party and extreme to whom
they thought to make a condescension unto ; and, by endeavouring to
blanch their opinions, to make them seem probable, they are engaged to
the defence of their consequences before they are aware. Amyraldus
(whom I look upon as one of the greatest wits of these days) will at
present go a middle way between the churches of France and the Armi-
nians. What hath been the issue ? Among the churches, divisions, tumult,
disorder ; among the professors and ministers, revilings, evil surmisings ;
to the whole body of the people, scandals and offences ; and in respect of
himself, evidence of daily approaching nearer to the Arminian party, until,
as one of them saith of him, he is not far from their kingdom of heaven.
But is this all ? Nay, but Grotius, Episcopius, Curcellseus,1 etc. (quanta
nomina ! ) with others, must go a middle way to accommodate with the
Socinians; and all that will not follow are rigid men, that by any means
•will defend the opinions they are fallen upon. The same plea is made by
others for accommodation with the Papists ; and still " moderation," " the
middle way," " condescension," are cried up. I can freely say, that I know
not that man in England who is willing to go farther in forbearance, love,
and communion with all that fear Grod and hold the foundation, than I am ;
but that this is to be done upon other grounds, principles, and ways, by
other means and expedients, than by a condescension from the exactness
of the least apex of gospel truth, or by an accommodation of doctrines by
loose and general terms, I have elsewhere sufficiently declared. Let no
man deceive you with vain pretences ; hold fast the truth as it is in Jesus,
part not with one iota, and contend for it when called thereunto.

2. Take heed of the snare of Satan in affecting eminency by singularity.
It is good to strive to excel and to go before one another in knowledge and
in light, as in holiness and obedience. To do this in the road is difficult.
Ahimaaz had not outrun Cushi but that he took a by-path. Many rinding
it impossible to emerge unto any consideration by walking in the beaten path
of truth (all parts of divinity, all ways of handling it, being carried already
to such a height and excellency, that to make any considerable improve
ment requires great pains, study, and an insight into all kinds of learning),
and yet not able to conquer the itch of being accounted 7ivt$ fteydXoi,
turn aside into by-ways, and turn the eyes of all men to them by scramb
ling over hedge and ditch, when the sober traveller is not at all regarded.

The Roman historian, giving an account of the degeneracy of eloquence
after it once came to its height in the time of Cicero, fixeth on this as the
most probable reason: " Difficilis in perfecto mora est; naturaliterque, quod
procedere non potest, recedit ; et ut primo ad consequendos, quos priores
ducimus, accendimur : ita, ubi aut prseteriri, aut sequari eos posse desperavi-
mus, studium cum spe senescit; et quod adsequi non potest, sequi desinit; et,
velut occupatam relinquens materiam, quserit novam : prseteritoque eo in

1 " Quotquot hactenus theologica tractarunt, id sibi negotii crediderunt solum dari,
nt quam sive sors illis obtulerat, sive judicio amplexi erant sententiam, totis illam viri-
bus tuerentur." — Curcellseus Praefat. ad Opera Episcop.

VOL. XIL 4

50 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

quo eminere non possumus, aliquid in quo nitamur conquirimus ; sequi-
turquc, ut frcquens ac mobilis transitus maximum perfect! operis impedi-
mentum sit." — Paterc. Hist. Rom. lib. i. cap. xvii.

I wish some such things may not be said of the doctrine of the reformed
churches. It was not long since raised to a great height of purity in
itself, and perspicuity in the way of its delivery ; but athletic constitutions
are seldom permanent.1 Men would not be content to walk after others,
and finding they could not excel what was done, they have given over
to imitate it or to do anything in the like kind; and therefore, neglecting
that wherein they could not be eminent, they have taken a course to
have something peculiar wherein to put forth their endeavours. Let us,
then, watch against this temptation, and know that a man may be higher
than his brethren, and yet be but a Saul.

3. Let not any one attempt dealing with these men that is not in some
good measure furnished with those kinds of literature and those common arts
wherein they excel; as, first, the knowledge of the tongues ivherein the Scripture
is written, namely, the Hebrew and Greek. He that is not in some mea
sure acquainted with these will scarcely make thorough work in dealing
with them. There is not a word, nor scarce a letter in a word (if I may so
speak), which they do not search and toss up and down ; not an expression
which they pursue not through the whole Scripture, to see if any place
will give countenance to the interpretation of it which they embrace. The
curious use of the Greek articles, which, as Scaliger calls them, are "loqua-
cissimse gentis flabellum," is their great covert against the arguments for
the deity of Christ. Their disputes about the Hebrew words wherein
the doctrine of the satisfaction of Christ is delivered in the Old Testament,
the ensuing treatise will in part manifest. Unless a man can debate the
use of words with them in the Scripture, and by instances from other
approved authors, it will be hard so to enclose or shut them up but that
they will make way to evade and escape. Press them with any testimony
of Scripture, if of any one word of the testimony, whereon the sense of
the whole in any measure depends, they can except that in another place
that word in the original hath another signification, and therefore it is
not necessary that it should here signify as you urge it, unless you are
able to debate the true meaning and import of the word with them, they
suppose they have done enough to evade your testimony. And no less
[necessary], nextly, are the common arts of logic and rhetoric, wherein they
exercise themselves. Among all Socinus' works, there is none more per
nicious than the little treatise he wrote about sophisms ; wherein he labours
to give instances of all manner of sophistical arguments in those which are
produced for the confirmation of the doctrine of the blessed Trinity.

He that would re-enforce those arguments, and vindicate them from his
exceptions and the entanglements cast upon them, without some consider
able acquaintance with the principles of logic and artificial rules of argu
mentation, will find himself at a loss. Besides, of all men in the world, in
their argumentations they are most sophistical. It is seldom that they
urge any reason or give any exception wherein they conclude not "a par-
ticulari ad universale," or "ab indefinite ad universale, exclusive," or "ab
aliquo statu Christi ad omnem," or "ab oeconomia Trinitatis ad theologiam
Deitatis," or "ab usu vocis alicubi" to "ubique:" as, " Christ is a man,
therefore not God; he is the servant of the Father, therefore not of the

T *E» reuri 'yvftvaaTixoiffii/ a! \<r uxpot tut^ia.;, ffQaXtpal, r,v tv <ru \ff^a.rta 'iunv ol ya.p
'viiv tv ru KUTta ovdi uTftpiiiv ivti 3s ovx. a.<rpifj.iwfiv oi$i n Suvavrai ttfi <ra
i, \iitwai itri r» %t7par. — Hippocrat. Apkoris. lib. i. sect. 1 1.

61

same nature." And the like instances may be given in abundance ; from
which kind of arguing he will hardly extricate himself who is ignorant
of the rudiments of logic. The frequency of figurative expressions in the
Scripture, which they make use of to their advantage, requires the know
ledge of rhetoric also in him that will deal with them to any good purpose.
A good assistance (in the former of these especially) is given to students
by Keslerus, "in examine Logicaa, Metaphysics, et Physicae Photinianse."
The pretended maxims, also, which they insist on from the civil law, in the
business of the satisfaction of Christ, which are especially urged by Socinus,
and by Crellius in his defence against Grotius, will make him who shall en
gage with them see it necessary in some measure to be acquainted with the
principles of that faculty and learning also.

With those who are destitute of these, the great Spirit of truth is an
abundantly sufficient preserver from all the cunning sleights of men that
lie in wait to deceive. He can give them to believe and suffer for the
truth. But that they should at any time look upon themselves as called to
read the books or dispute with the men of these abominations, I can see
no ground.

4. Always bear in mind the gross figments that they seek to assert and
establish in the room of that which they cunningly and subtiiely oppose.
Remember that the aim of their arguments against the deity of Christ and
the blessed Trinity is, to set up two true Gods, the one so by nature, the
other made so, — the one God in his own essence, the other a God from him
by office, that was a man, is a spirit, and shall cease to be a God. And
some farther account hereof you will meet with in the close of the ensuing
treatise.

5. Diligent, constant, serious reading, studying, meditating on the Scrip
tures, with the assistance and direction of all the rules and advantages for
the right understanding of them which, by the observation and diligence
of many worthies, we are furnished withal, accompanied with continual
attendance on the throne of grace for the presence of the Spirit of truth
with us, to lead us into all truth, and to increase his anointing of us day
by day, " shining into our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of
God in the face of Jesus Christ," is, as for all other things in the course of
our pilgrimage and walking with God, so for our preservation against
these abominations, and the enabling of us to discover their madness and
answer their objections, of indispensable necessity. Apollos, who was
"mighty in the Scriptures," Acts xviii. 24, "mightily convinced the" gain
saying " Jews," verse 28. Neither, in dealing with these men, is there any
better course in the world than, in a good order and method, to multiply
testimonies against them to the same purpose; for whereas they have shifts
in readiness to every particular, and hope to darken a single star, when
they are gathered into a constellation they send out a glory and bright
ness which they cannot stand before. Being engaged myself once in a
public dispute about the satisfaction of Christ, I took this course, in a
clear and evident coherence, producing very many testimonies to the con
firmation of it; which together gave such an evidence to the truth, that
one who stood by instantly affirmed that "there was enough spoken to stop
the mouth of the devil himself." And this course in the business of the
deity and satisfaction of Christ will certainly be triumphant. Let us,
then, labour to have our senses abundantly exercised in the word, that we
inay be able to discern between good and evil ; and that not by studying
the places themselves [only] that are controverted, but by a diligent search
into the whole mind and will of God as revealed in. the word ; wherein the

52 THE PREFACE TO THE READER.

sense is given in to humble souls with more life, power, and evidence of truth,
and is more effectual for the begetting of faith and love to the truth, than
in a curious search after the annotations of men upon particular places.
And truly I must needs say that I know not a more deplorable mistake
in the studies of divines, both preachers and others, than their diversion
from an immediate, direct study of the Scriptures themselves unto the
studying of commentators, critics, scholiasts, annotators, and the like helps,
which God in his good providence, making use of the abilities, and some
times the ambition and ends of men, hath furnished us withal. Not that
I condemn the use and study of them, which I wish men were more dili
gent in, but desire pardon if I mistake, and do only surmise, by the ex
perience of my own folly for many years, that many which seriously study
the things of God do yet rather make it their business to inquire after the
sense of other men on the Scriptures than to search studiously into them
themselves.

0. That direction, in this kind, which with me is instar omnium, is for a
diligent endeavour to have the power of the truths professed and contended for
abiding upon our hearts, that we may not contend for notions, but what
we have a practical acquaintance with in our own souls. When the heart
is cast indeed into the mould of the doctrine that the mind embraceth ;
when the evidence and necessity of the truth abides in us; when not the
sense of the words only is in our heads, but the sense of the things abides
in our hearts ; when we have communion with God in the doctrine we con
tend for, — then shall we be garrisoned, by the grace of God, against all the
assaults of men. And without this all our contending is, as to ourselves,
of no value. What am I the better if I can dispute that Christ is God,
but have no sense or sweetness in my heart from hence that he is a God
in covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to evince, by testimonies
and arguments, that he hath made satisfaction for sin, if, through my un
belief, the wrath of God abideth on me, and I have no experience of my
own being made the righteousness of God in him, — if I find not, in my
standing before God, the excellency of having my sins imputed to him
and his righteousness imputed to me ? Will it be any advantage to me, in
the issue, to profess and dispute that God works the conversion of a sin
ner by the irresistible grace of his Spirit, if I was never acquainted experi
mentally with the deadness and utter impotency to good, that opposition to
the law of God, which is in my own soul by nature, with the efficacy of
the exceeding greatness of the power of God in quickening, enlightening,
and bringing forth the fruits of obedience in me? It is the power of truth
in the heart alone that will make us cleave unto it indeed in an hour of
temptation. Let us, then, not think that we are any thing the better for
our conviction of the truths of the great doctrines of the gospel, for which
we contend with these men, unless we find the power of the truths abid
ing in our own hearts, and have a continual experience of their necessity
and excellency in our standing before God and our communion with him.

7. Do not look upon these things as things afar off, wherein you are
little concerned. The evil is at the door; there is not a city, a town,
scarce a village, in England, wherein some of this poison is not poured
forth. Are not the doctrines of free will, universal redemption, apostasy
from grace, mutability of God, of denying the resurrection of the dead,
with all the foolish conceits of many about God and Christ, in this nation,
ready to gather to this head?

Let us not deceive ourselves ; Satan is a crafty enemy. He yet hovers
up and down in the lubricous, vain imaginations of a confused multitude,

THE PREFACE TO THE READER 53

whose tongues are so divided that they understand not one the other. I
dare boldly say, that if ever he settle to a stated opposition to the gospel,
it will be in Socinianism. The Lord rebuke him; he is busy in and by
many, where little notice is taken of him. But of these things thus far.

A particular account of the cause and reasons of my engagement in this
business, with what I have aimed at in the ensuing discourse, you will find
given in my epistle to the university, so that the same things need not here
also be delivered. The confutation of Mr Biddle's Catechism, and Smalcius'
Catechism, commonly called the " Kacovian ; " with the vindication of all
the texts of Scripture giving testimony to the deity of Christ throughout
the Old and New Testament from the perverse glosses and interpretations
put upon them by Hugo Grotius in his Annotations on the Bible, with
those also which concern his satisfaction ; and, on the occasion hereof, the
confirmation of the most important truths of the Scripture, about the nature
of God, the person of Christ and the Holy Ghost, the offices of Christ,
etc., — have been in my design. With what mind and intention, with what
love to the truth, with what dependence on God for his presence and as
sistance, with what earnestness of supplication to enjoy the fruit of the
promise of our dear Lord Jesus, to lead me into all truth by his blessed
Spirit, I have gone through this work, the Lord knows. I only know that
in every particular I have come short of my duty therein, and that a review
of my paths and pains would yield me very little refreshment, but that " I
know in whom I have believed, and am persuaded that even concerning
this also he will remember me for good, and spare me, according to the
greatness of his mercy." And whatever becomes of this weak endeavour
before the Lord, yet " he hath made with me an everlasting covenant,
ordered in all things and sure, and this is all my salvation and all my
desire, although he make it not to grow." What is performed is submitted
humbly to the judgment of them to whom this address is made. About
the thoughts of others, or any such as by envy, interest, curiosity, or fac
tion, may be swayed or biassed, I am not solicitous. If any benefit re
dound to the saints of the Most High, or any that belong to 'the purpose
of God's love be advantaged, enlightened, or built up in their most holy
faith in the least, by what is here delivered, I have my reward.

MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

I HAVE often wondered and complained that there was no catechism yet
extant (that I could ever see or hear of) from whence one might learn
the true grounds of the Christian religion, as the same is delivered in the
holy Scripture, all catechisms generally being so stuffed with the sup-
posals and traditions of men that the least part of them is derived from
the word of God : for when councils, convocations, and assemblies of
divines, justling the sacred writers out of their place in the church, had
once framed articles and confessions of faith according to their own fancies
and interests, and the civil magistrate had by his authority ratified the
same, all catechisms were afterward fitted to those articles and confessions,
and the Scripture either wholly omitted or brought in only for a show,
not one quotation amongst many being a whit to the purpose, as will soon
appear to any man of judgment, who, taking into his hand the said cate
chisms, shall examine the texts alleged in them ; for if he do this diligently
and impartially, he will find the Scripture and those catechisms to be at
so wide a distance one from another, that he will begin to question whether
the catechists gave any heed at all to what they wrote, and did not only
themselves refuse to make use of their reason, but presume that their
readers also would do the same. In how miserable a condition, then, as
to spiritual things, must Christians generally needs be, when thus trained
up, not, as the apostle adviseth, " in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord," but in the supposals and traditions of men, having little or no
assurance touching the reality of their religion ! which some observing,
and not having the happiness to light upon the truth, have quite aban
doned all piety whatsoever, thinking there is no firm ground whereon to
build the same. To prevent which mischief in time to come, by bringing
men to a certainty (I mean such men as own the divine authority of the
Scripture), and withal to satisfy the just and pious desires of many who
would fain understand the truth of our religion, to the end they might not
only be built up themselves, but also instruct their children and families
in the same, I have here (according to the understanding I have gotten by
continual meditation on the word of God) compiled a Scripture Catechism ;
wherein I bring the reader to a sure and certain knowledge of the chiefest
things pertaining both to belief and practice, whilst I myself assert nothing
(as others have done before me), but only introduce the Scripture faith
fully uttering its own assertions, which all Christians confess to be of un
doubted truth. Take heed, therefore, whosoever thou art that lightest on
this book, and there readest things quite contrary to the doctrines that
pass current amongst the generality of Christians (for I confess most of
the things here displayed have such a tendency), that thou fall not foul
upon them ; for thou canst not do so without falling foul upon the holy
Scripture itself, inasmuch as all the answers throughout the whole Cate
chism are faithfully transcribed out of it and rightly applied to the ques-

56 MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

tions, as thou thyself mayst perceive if thou make a diligent inspection
into the several texts, with all their circumstances. Thou wilt perhaps
here reply, that the texts which I have cited do indeed in the letter hold
forth such things as are contrary to the doctrines commonly received
amongst Christians, but> they ought to have a mystical or figurative inter
pretation put upon them, and then both the doctrines and the texts of
Scripture will suit well enough. To which I answer, that if we once take
this liberty to impose our mystical or figurative interpretations on the
Scripture, without express warrant of the Scripture itself, we shall have
no settled belief, but be liable continually to be turned aside by any one
that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture, there being no
certain rule to judge of such meanings as there is of the literal ones, nor
is there any error, how absurd and impious soever, but may on such terms
be accorded with the Scripture. All the abominable idolatries of the
Papists, all the superstitious fopperies of the Turks, all the licentious opi
nions and practices of the Ranters, may by this means be not only palliated
but defended by the word of God. Certainly, might we of our own heads
figuratively interpret the Scripture, when the letter is neither repugnant
to our senses nor to the scope of the respective texts, nor to a greater
number of plain texts to the contrary (for in such cases we must of neces
sity admit figures in the sacred volume as well as we do in profane ones,
otherwise both they and it will clash with themselves or with our senses,
which the Scripture itself intimates to be of infallible certainty ; see
1 John i. 1-3) ; — might we, I say, at our pleasure impose our figures and
allegories on the plain words of God, the Scripture would in very deed be,
what some blasphemously affirm it to be, " a nose of wax." For instance, „
it is frequently asserted in the Scripture that God hath a similitude or
shape, hath his place in the heavens, hath also affections or passions, as
love, hatred, mercy, anger, and the like ; neither is any thing to the con
trary delivered there unless seemingly in certain places, which neither for
number nor clearness are comparable unto those of the other side. Why
now should I depart from the letter of the Scripture in these particulars,
and boldly affirm, with the generality of Christians (or rather with the
generality of such Christians only as, being conversant with the false philo
sophy that reigneth in the schools, have then* understandings perverted
with wrong notions), that God is without a shape, in no certain place, and
incapable of affections ? Would not this be to use the Scripture like a
nose of wax, and when of itself it looketh any way, to turn it aside at our
pleasure ? And would not God be so far from speaking to our capacity
in his word (which is the usual refuge of the adversaries when in these and
the like matters concerning God they are pressed with the plain words of
the Scripture), as that he would by so doing render us altogether incapable
of finding out his meaning, whilst he spake one thing and understood the
clean contrary ? Yea, would he not have taken the direct course to make
men substitute an idol in his stead (for the adversaries hold that to con
ceive of God as having a shape, or affections, or being in a certain place,
is idolatry), if he described himself in the Scripture otherwise than indeed
he is, without telling us so much in plain terms, that we might not con
ceive amiss of him ? Thus we see that when sleep, which plainly argueth
weakness and imperfection, had been ascribed to God, Ps. xliv. 23, the
contrary is said of him, Ps. cxxi. 4. Again, when weariness had been
attributed to him, Isa. i. 14, the same is expressly denied of him, Isa.
xl. 28. And would not God, think ye, have done the like in those fore-
inentioned things, were the case the same in them as in the others ? This

MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM. 57

consideration is so pressing, that a certain author (otherwise a very learned
and intelligent man) perceiving the -weight thereof, and not knowing how
to avoid the same, took up (though very unluckily) one erroneous tenet
to maintain another, telling us in a late book of his, entitled Conjectura
Cabalistica, " That for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews
entertain a conceit of God as in human shape, was not any more a way to
bring them into idolatry than by acknowledging man to be God, as," saith
he, "our religion does in Christ." How can this consist even with conson-
ancy to his own principles, whilst he holds it to be false that God hath
any shape, but true that Christ is God ; for will a false opinion of God not
sooner lead men into idolatry than a true opinion of Christ ? But it is
no marvel that this author, and other learned men with him, entertain
such conceits of God and Christ as are repugnant to the current of the
Scripture, whilst they set so high a rate on the sublime, indeed, but un
certain notions of the Platonists. and in the meantime slight the plain but
certain letter of the sacred writers, as being far below the Divine Majesty,
and written only to comply with the rude apprehensions of the vulgar,
unless by a mystical interpretation they be screwed up to Platonism. This
is the stone at which the pride of learned men hath caused them continu
ally to stumble, — namely, to think that they can speak more wisely and
worthily of God than he hath spoken of himself in his word. This hath
brought that more than Babylonish confusion of language into the Chris
tian religion, whilst men have framed those horrid and intricate expres
sions, under the colour of detecting and excluding heresies, but in truth to
put a baffle on the simplicity of the Scripture and usher in heresies, that
so they might the more easily carry on their worldly designs, which could
not be effected but through the ignorance of the people, nor the people
brought into ignorance but by wrapping up religion in such monstrous
terms as neither the people nor they themselves that invented them (or at
least took them from the invention of others) did understand. Wherefore,
there is no possibility to reduce the Christian religion to its primitive in
tegrity, — a thing, though much pretended, yea, boasted of in reformed
churches, yet never hitherto sincerely endeavoured, much less effected (in
that men have, by severe penalties, been hindered to reform religion beyond
such a stint as that of Luther, or at most that of Calvin), — but by cashiering
those many intricate terms and devised forms of speaking imposed on our
-religion, and by wholly betaking ourselves to the plainness of the Scrip
ture : for I have long since observed (and find my observation to be true
and certain), that when, to express matters of religion, men make use of
words and phrases unheard of in the Scripture, they slily under them
couch false doctrines and obtrude them on us; for without question the
doctrines of the'Scripture can be so aptly explained in no language as that
of the Scripture itself. Examine, therefore, the expressions of God's being
" infinite and incomprehensible, of his being a simple act, of his subsisting
in three persons or after a threefold manner, of a divine circumincession,
of an eternal generation, of an eternal procession, of an incarnation, of an
hypostatical union, of a communication of properties, of the mother of
God, of God dying, of God made man, of transubstantiation, of consub-
stantiation, of original sin, of Christ's taking our nature on him, of Christ's
making satisfaction to God for our sins, both past, present, and to come,
of Christ's fulfilling the law for us, of Christ's being punished by God for
us, of Christ's merits or his meritorious obedience, both active and passive,
of Christ's purchasing the kingdom of heaven for us, of Christ's enduring
the wrath of God, yea, the pains of a damned man, of Christ's rising from

58 MR BIDDLE'S PREFACE TO HIS CATECHISM.

the dead by his own power, of the ubiquity of Christ's body, of apprehend
ing and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, of Christ's
being our surety, of Christ's paying our debts, of our sins imputed to
Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of Christ's dying to appease
the wrath of God and reconcile him to us, of infused grace, of free grace,
of the world of the elect, of irresistible workings of the Spirit in bringing
men to believe, of carnal reason, of spiritual desertions, of spiritual incomes,
of the outgoings of God, of taking up the ordinance," etc., and thou shalt
find that as these forms of speech are not owned by the Scripture, so
neither the things contained in them. How excellent, therefore, was that
advice of Paul to Timothy in his second epistle to him, chap. i. 13, " Hold
fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love
which is in Christ Jesus" ! for if we once let go those forms of sound words
learned from the apostles, and take up such as have been coined by others in
succeeding ages, we shall together [with them] part with the apostles' doc
trine, as woful experience hath taught us ; for after Constantine the Great,
together with the council of Nice, had once deviated from the language of
the Scripture in the business touching the Son of God, calling him " co-
essential with the Father," this opened a gap for others afterward, under a
pretence of guarding the truth from heretics, to devise new terms at plea
sure; which did, by degrees, so vitiate the chastity and simplicity of our
faith, delivered in the Scripture, that there hardly remained so much as
one point thereof sound and entire. So that as it was wont to be disputed
in the schools, whether the old ship of Theseus (which had in a manner
been wholly altered at sundry times, by the accession of new pieces of
timber upon the decay of the old) were the same ship it had been at first,
and not rather another by degrees substituted in the stead thereof : in
like manner there was so much of the primitive truth worn away, by the
corruption that did, by little and little, overspread the generality of Chris
tians, and so many errors in stead thereof tacked to our religion, at several
times, that one might justly question whether it were the same religion
with that which Christ and his apostles taught, and not another since de
vised by men and put in the room thereof. But thanks be to God through
our Lord Jesus Christ, who, amidst the universal corruption of our reli
gion, hath preserved his written word entire (for had men corrupted it,
they would have made it speak more favourably in behalf of their lusts
and worldly interests than it doth) ; which word, if we with diligence and
sincerity pry into, resolving to embrace the doctrine that is there plainly
delivered, though all the world should set itself against us for so doing,
we shall easily discern the truth, and so be enabled to reduce our religion
to its first principles. For thus much I perceive by mine own experience,
who, being otherwise of no great abilities, yet setting myself, with the
aforesaid resolution, for sundry years together upon an impartial search
of the Scripture, have not only detected many errors, but here presented
the reader with a body of religion exactly transcribed out of the word of
God : which body whosoever shall well ruminate and digest in his mind,
may> by the same method wherein I have gone before him, make a farther
inquiry into the oracles of God, and draw forth whatsoever yet lies hid;
and being brought to light, [it] will tend to the accomplishment of godliness
amongst us, for at this only all the Scripture aimeth ; — the Scripture,
which all men who have thoroughly studied the same must of necessity be
enamoured with, as breathing out the mere wisdom of God, and being the
exactest rule of a holy life (which all religions whatsoever confess to be
the way unto happiness) that can be imagined, and whose divinity will

PREFACE OF MB BIDDLE TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 59

never, even to the world's end, be questioned by any but such as are un
willing to deny their worldly lusts and obey the pure and perfect precepts
thereof; which obedience whosoever shall perform, he shall, not only in
the life to come, but even in this life, be equal unto angels.

JOHN BIDDLE.

MR BIDDLE' S PREFACE BRIEFLY EXAMINED.

IN the entrance of Mr Biddle's preface he tells the reader very modestly
" That he could never yet see or hear of a catechism" (although, I presume,
he had seen, or heard at least, of one or two written by Faustus Socinus,
though not completed ; of one by Valentinus Smalcius, commonly called
" The Racovian Catechism," from whence many of his questions and answers
are taken ; and of an " Exposition of the Articles of Faith, in the Creed
called the Apostles', in way of catechism, by Jonas Schlichtingius," pub
lished in French, anno 1646, in Latin, anno 1651) "from whence the true
grounds of Christian religion might be learned, as it is delivered in Scrip
ture ;" and therefore, doubtless, all Christians have cause to rejoice at
the happy product of Mr B.'s pains, wherewith he now acquaints them,
ushered in with this modest account, whereby at length they may know
their own religion, wherein as yet they have not been instructed to
any purpose. And the reason of this is, because " all other catechisms
are stuffed with many supposals and traditions, the least part of them
being derived from the word of God," Mr B. being judge. And this is
the common language of his companions, comparing themselves and their
own writings with those of other men.1 The common language they de
light in is, " Though Christians have hitherto thought otherwise."

Whether we have reason to stand to this determination, and acquiesce
in this censure and sentence, the ensuing considerations of what Mr B.
substitutes in the room of those catechisms which he here rejects will
evince and manifest. But to give countenance to this humble entrance
into his work, he tells his reader " That councils, convocations, and assem
blies of divines, have justled out the Scripture, and framed confessions of
faith according to their own fancies and interests, getting them confirmed
by the civil magistrate; according unto which confessions all catechisms
are and have been framed, without any regard to the Scripture." What
"councils" Mr B. intends he informs us not, nor what it is that in them
he chiefly complains of. If he intend some only, such as the apostatizing
times of the church saw, he knows he is not opposed by them with whom
he hath to do, nor yet if he charge them all for some miscarriages in them
or about them. If all, as that of the apostles themselves, Acts xv., toge
ther with the rest that for some ages followed after, and that as to the
doctrine by them delivered, fall under his censure, we have nothing but

1 "Quicunquc sacras literas assiduamanuversat, quantumvis nescio quos catechismos,
vel locos communes et commentaries quam familiarissimos sibi reddiderit, is statimcum
nostrorum libros vel semel inspexerit, intelliget quantum distant sera lupinis." — Valent.
Smalc. Res. Orat. Vogel. et Peuschel. Rac. anno 1617, p. 34. " Scripta haec, Dei gloriam et
Christi Domini nostri honorem, ac ipsam nostram salutem, ab omni traditionum human,
arum labe, ipsa divina veritate literis sacris comprehensa repurgare nituntur, et expe.
ditissima explicandse Dei glorias, honoris Christo Domino nostro asserendi, et salutis
conscquendae ratione exccrpta, ac omnibus proposita earn ipsissima sacrarum literarum
authoritate sancire et stabilire conantur." — Hieron. Moscorov. Ep. Dedic. Cat. Rac. ad
Jacob. M B. R. nomine et jussu Ecclesise Pplon. " Neque porro quemquam esse arbi-
tror, qui in tot ac tantis Christianas religionis placitis, a reliquis hominibus dissentiat,
in quot quantisque ego dissentio." — Socin. Ep. ad Squarcialup. anno 1581.

60 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the testimony of Mr B. to induce us to a belief of this insinuation.1 His
testimony in things of this nature will be received only by them who re
ceive his doctrine.

What I have to offer on this account I have spoken otherwhere. That
the confessions of faith which the first general councils, as they are called,
during the space of four hundred years and upward, composed and put
forth, were " framed according to the fancies and interests of men," be
side the word, is Mr B.'s fancy, and his interest to have it so esteemed.
The faith he professeth, or rather the infidelity he has fallen into, was
condemned in them all, and that upon the occasion of its then first com
ing into the world ; " Hinc illse lacrimae : " if they stand, he must fall.
" That the catechisms of latter days" (I suppose he intends those in use
amongst the reformed churches) "did wholly omit the Scripture, or brought
it in only for a show, not one quotation amongst many being a whit to
the purpose," you have the same testimony for as for the assertions fore
going.2 He that will say this, had need some other way evince that he
makes conscience of what he says, or that he dare not say any thing, so
it serve his turn. Only Mr B. hath quoted Scripture to the purpose !
To prove God to be " finite, limited, included in heaven, of a visible shape,
ignorant of things future, obnoxious to turbulent passions and affections,"
are some of his quotations produced ; for the like end and purpose are
the most of the rest alleged. Never, it seems, was the Scripture alleged
to any purpose before ! And these things, through the righteous hand of
God taking vengeance on an unthankful generation, not delighting in the
light and truth which he hath sent forth, do we hear and read. Of those
who have made bold ax/vjjra KivsTv, and to shake the fundamentals of gos
pel truths or the mystery of grace, we have daily many examples. The
number is far more scarce of them who have attempted to blot out those
xoivai evvoiai, or ingrafted notions of mankind, concerning the perfec
tions of God, which Mr B. opposeth. " Fabulas vulgaris nequitia non
invenit." An opposition to the first principles of rational beings must
needs be talked of. Other catechists, besides himself, Mr B. tells you,
" have written with so much oscitancy and contempt of the Scripture,
that a considering man will question whether they gave any heed to
what they wrote themselves, or refused to make use of their reason,
and presumed others would do so also." And so you have the sum of his
judgment concerning all other catechisms, besides his own, that he hath
either seen or heard of. " They are all fitted to confessions of faith, com
posed according to the fancies and interests of men, written without attend
ing to the Scripture or quoting it to any purpose, their authors, like
madmen, not knowing what they wrote, and refusing to make use of their
reason that they might so do." And this is the modest, humble entrance
of Mr B.'s preface.

All that have gone before him were knaves, fools, idiots, madmen. The
proof of these assertions you are to expect. When a philosopher pressed
Diogenes with this sophism, " What J am, thou art not ; I am a man,
therefore thou art not," he gave him no other answer but, " Begin with
me, and the conclusion will be true." Mr B. is a Master of Arts, and
knew, doubtless, that such assertions as might be easily turned upon him
self are of no use to any but those who have not aught else to say. Per
haps Mr B. speaks only to them of the same mind with himself ; and then,

1 "ATDO-OV ya.p, i] t avros itieHfros, •' vovrov \iyei itrevrui -giara't. — Arist. Rhet. lib. iii.
cap. xv.
» "Calumniate fortiter; aliquid adhserebit."

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 61

indeed, as Socrates said, it was no hard thing to commend the Athenians
before the Athenians, but to commend them before the Lacedaemonians
was difficult.1 No more is it any great undertaking to condemn men sound
in the faith unto Socinians ; before others it will not prove so easy.

It is not incumbent on me to defend any, much less all the catechisms
that have been written by learned men of the reformed religion. That
there are errors in some, mistakes in others ; that some are more clear,
plain, and scriptural than others, I grant. All of them may have, have
had, their use in their kind. That in any of them there is any thing
taught inconsistent with communion with God, or inevitably tending to
the impairing of faith and love, Mr B. is not, I presume, such a p/Ao-
irovog as to undertake to demonstrate. I shall only add, that notwith
standing the vain plea of having given all his answers in the express
words of Scripture (whereby, with the foolish bird, he hides his head from
the fowler, but leaves his whole monstrous body visible, the teaching part
of his Catechism being solely in the insinuating, ensnaring, captious ques
tions thereof, leading the understanding of the reader to a misapprehen
sion and misapplication of the words of the Scripture, it being very easy
to make up the grossest blasphemy imaginable out of the words of the
Scripture itself), I never found, saw, read, or heard of any so grossly per
verting the doctrine of the Scripture concerning God and all his ways
as those of Mr B.'s do ; for in sundry particulars they exceed those men
tioned before of Socinus, Smalcius, Schlichtingius, which had justly gotten
the repute of the worst in the world. And for an account of my reason of
this persuasion I refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of them.

This, then, being the sad estate of Christians, so misinformed by such
vile varlets as have so foully deceived them and misled them, as above
mentioned, what is to be done and what course to be taken to bring in
light into the world, and to deliver men from the sorrowful condition
whereinto they have been catechised ? For this end, he tells the reader,
doth he show himself to the world (Qtb$ a<nrb /A^avTjg), to undeceive them,
and to bring them out of all their wanderings unto some certainty of re
ligion.2 This he discourses, pp. 4, 5. The reasons he gives you of this
undertaking are two : — 1. " To bring men to a certainty;" 2. " To satisfy
the pious desire of some who would fain know the truth of our religion."
The way he fixes on for the compassing of the end proposed is : — 1. " By
asserting nothing;" 2. " By introducing the plain texts of Scripture to
speak for themselves." Each briefly may be considered.

1. What fluctuating persons are they, not yet come to any certainty
in religion, whom Mr B. intends to deal withal ? Those, for the most
part, of them who seem to be intended in such undertakings, are fully
persuaded from the Scripture of the truth of those things wherein they
have been instructed. Of these, some, I have heard, have been unsettled
by Mr B., but that he shall ever settle any (there being no consistency
in error or falsehood) is impossible. Mr B. knows there is no one of the
catechists he so decries but directs them whom he so instructs to the
Scriptures, and settles their faith on the word of God alone, though they
labour to help their faith and understanding by opening of it; whereunto
also they are called. I fear Mr B.'s certainty will at length appear to be
scepticism, and his settling of men to be the unsettling ; that his conver-

1 Oo %a\i<rav 'A4vvx.iovs In 'Afvyaioii lfa.ivt~t, «XX" l» AaxeSa/^ov/a/j. — Socrat. apud Plat,
in Menexen. Cit. Arist. Rhet. lib. iii. cap. xiv.

* " Multa passim ab ultima vetustate vitia admissa sunt, qvue nemoprscter me indicabit."
— Scalig.

62 THE PREFACE OF MR DIDDLE

sions are from the faith ; and that in this very book he aims more to ac
quaint men with his questions than the Scripture answers.1 But he says, —

2. Those whom he aims to bring to this certainty are "such as would
fain understand the truth of our religion." If by " our religion" he means
the religion of himself and his followers (or rather masters), the Socinians,
I am sorry to hear that any are so greedy of its acquaintance. 3 Happily
this is but a pretence, such as his predecessors in this work have commonly
used. [As] for understanding the truth of it, they will find in the issue what
an endless work they have undertaken. " Who can make that straight
which is crooked, or number that which is wanting ?" If by "our religion"
he means the Christian religion, it may well be inquired who they are, with
their "just and pious desires," who yet understand not the truth of Christian
religion ? that is, that it is the only true religion. When we know these
Turks, Jews, Pagans, which Mr B. hath to deal withal, we shall be able
to judge of what reason he had to labour to satisfy their "just and pious
desires." I would also willingly be informed how they came to so high an
advancement in our religion as to desire to be brought up in it, and to
be able to instruct others, when as yet they do not understand the truth
of it, or are not satisfied therein. And, —

3. As these are admirable men, so the way he takes for their satisfac
tion is admirable also; that is, by "asserting nothing!" He that asserts no
thing proves nothing; for that which any one proves, that he asserts. In
tending, then, to bring men to a certainty who yet understand not the
truth of our religion, he asserts nothing, proves nothing (as is the manner
of some), but leaves them to themselves ; — a most compendious way of
teaching (for whose attainment Mr B. needed not to have been Master
of Arts), if > it proves effectual ! But by not asserting, it is evident Mr
B. intends not silence. He hath said too much to be so interpreted.
Only what he hath spoken, he hath done it in a sceptical way of inquiry ;
wherein, though the intendment of his mind be evident, and all his queries
may be easily resolved into so many propositions or assertions, yet as his
words lie, he supposes he may speak truly that he asserts nothing. Of the
truth, then, of this assertion, that he doth not assert any thing, the reader
will judge. And this is the path to atheism which, of all others, is most
trod and beaten in the days wherein we live. A liberty of judgment is
pretended, and queries are proposed, until nothing certain be left, nothing
unshaken. But, —

4. He " introduces the Scripture faithfully uttering its own assertions."
If his own testimony concerning his faithful dealing may be taken, this
must pass. The express words of the Scripture, I confess, are produced,
but as to Mr B.'s faithfulness in their production, I have sundry excep
tions to make ; as, —

(1.) That by his leading questions, and application of the Scripture to
them, he hath utterly perverted the scope and intendment of the places
urged. Whereas he pretends not to assert or explain the Scripture, he
most undoubtedly restrains the signification of the places by him al
leged unto the precise scope which in his sophistical queries he hath in
cluded. And in such a way of procedure, what may not the serpentine wits

1 " Hoc illis negotium est, non ethnicos convertendi, sed nostros evertendi."— TertuL
de Prescr. ad Hser.

» " Expressere id nobis vota multorutn, multseque etiam a remotissimis orbis partibus
ad nos transmissas preces."— Preefat ad Cat. Rac.

" Nam rex Seleucus me opere oravit maxumo,
Ut sibilatroues cogerem et conscriberem. "

Pyrgopol. in Plaut. Mil Glo. Act. i. ad fin.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 63

of men pretend to a confirmation of from Scripture, or any other book that
hath been written about such things as the inquiries are made after? It
were easy to give innumerable instances of this kind, but we fear God,
and dare not to make bold with him or his word.

(2.) Mr B. pretending to give an account of the " chiefest things per
taining to belief and practice," doth yet propose no question at all con
cerning many of the most important heads of our religion, and whereunto
the Scripture speaks fully and expressly, or proposes his thoughts in the
negative, leading on the scriptures from whence he makes his objections
to the grand truths he opposeth, concealing, as was said, the delivery of
them in the Scripture in other places innumerable ; so insinuating to the
men of "just and pious desires" with whom he hath to do that the Scripture
is silent of them. That this is the man's way of procedure, in reference
to the deity of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, the satisfaction and merit
of Christ, the corruption of nature, and efficacy of grace, with many other
most important heads of Christian religion, will be fully manifest in our
consideration of the several particulars as they shall occur in the method
Avherein by him they are handled.

(3.) What can be concluded of the mind of God in the Scripture, by
cutting off any place or places of it from their dependence, connection,
and tendency, catching at those words which seem to confirm what we
would have them so to do (whether, in the proper order wherein of God
they are set and fixed, they do in the least cast an eye towards the thesis
which they are produced to confirm or no), might easily be manifested by
innumerable instances, were not the vanity of such a course evident to all.

On the consideration of these few exceptions to Mr B.'s way of proce
dure, it will easily appear what little advantage he hath given him there
by, and how unjust his pretence is, which by this course he aims to prevail
upon men withal. This he opens, page 6 : "None," saith he, " can fall foul
upon the things contained in this Catechism" (which he confesseth to be
"quite contrary to the doctrine that passeth current among the generality
of Christians"), " as they are here displayed, because the answers are tran
scribed out of the Scriptures." But Mr B. may be pleased to take notice
that the "displaying," as he calls it, of his doctrines is the work of his ques
tions, and not of the words of Scripture produced to confirm them, which
have a sense cunningly and subtilely imposed on them by his queries, or
are pointed and restrained to the things which in the place of their delivery
they look not towards in any measure. We shall undoubtedly find, in the
process of this business, that Mr B.'s questions, being found guilty of treason
against God, will not be allowed sanctuary in the answers which they la
bour to creep into; and that, they disclaiming their protection, they may be
pursued, taken, and given up to the justice and severity of truth, without
the least profanation of their holiness. A murderer may be plucked from
the horns of the altar.

Nor is that the only answer insisted on for the removal of Mr B.'s
sophistry, which he mentions, p. 7, and pursues it for three or four leaves
onward of his preface, namely, " That the scriptures which he urgeth do in
the letter hold out such things as he allegeth them to prove, but yet they
must be figuratively interpreted." For Mr B.'s " mystical sense," I know
not what he intends by it, or by whom it is urged. This is applicable
solely to the places he produceth for the description of God and his attri
butes, concerning whom that some expressions of Scripture are to be so
interpreted himself confesseth, p. 13; and we desire to take leave to
inquire whether some others, beside what Mr B. allows, may not be of the

64 THE PREFACE OF MR BTDDLE

same consideration. In other things, for the most part, vie have nothing
at all to do with so much as the interpretation of the places he mentions,
but only to remove the grossly sophistical insinuations of his queries. For
instance, when Mr B. asks, "Whether Christ Jesus was a man or no?"
and allegeth express Scripture affirming that he was, we say not that the
Scripture must have a figurative interpretation, but that Mr B. is grossly
sophistical, concluding from the assertion of Christ's human nature to the
denial of his divine, and desperately injurious to the persons with whom
he pretends he hath to do, who as yet " understand not the truth of our
religion," in undertaking to declare to them the special " chief things of
belief and practice," and hiding from them the things of the greatest
moment to their salvation, and which the Scripture speaks most plentifully
unto, by not stating any question or making any such inquiry as their
affirmation might be suited unto. The like instance may be given in all
the particulars wherein Mr B. is departed from " the faith once delivered
to the saints." His whole following discourse, then, to the end of p. 13,
wherein he decries the answer to his way of procedure, which himself had
framed, he might have spared. It is true, we do affirm that there are
figurative expressions in the Scripture (and Mr B. dares not say the con
trary), and that they are accordingly to be interpreted ; not that they
are to have a mystical sense put upon them, but that the literal sense is to
be received, according to the direction of the figure which is in the words.
That these words of our Saviour, "This is my body," are figurative, I sup
pose Mr B. will not deny. Interpret them according to the figurative
import of them, and that interpretation gives you the literal, and not a
mystical sense, if such figures belong to speech and not to sense. That
sense, I confess, may be spiritually understood (then it is saving) or other
wise ; but this doth not constitute different senses in the words, but only
denote a difference in the understandings of men. But all this, in hypotlmi,
Mr B. fully grants, p. 9 ; so that there is no danger, by asserting it, to cast
the least thought of uncertainty on the word of God. But, p. 10, he gives
you an instance wherein this kind of interpretation must by no means be
allowed, namely, in the Scripture attributions of a shape and similitude (that
is, of eyes, ears, hands, feet) unto God, with passions and affections like unto
us ; which that they are not proper, but figuratively to be interpreted, he
tells you, p. 10-12, " those affirm who are perverted by false philosophy,
and make a nose of wax of the Scripture, which plainly affirms such things
of God." In what sense the expressions of Scripture intimated concerning
God are necessarily to be received and understood, the ensuing considera
tions will inform the reader. For the present, I shall only say that I do
not know scarce a more unhappy instance in his whole book that he
could have produced than this, wherein he hath been blasphemously in
jurious unto God and his holy word. And herein we shall deal with him
from Scripture itself, right reason,1 and the common consent of mankind.
How remote our interpretations of the places by him quoted for his pur
pose are from wresting the Scriptures, or turning them aside from their
purpose, scope, and intendment, will also in due time be made manifest.

We say, indeed, as Mr B. observes, that in those kinds of expressions God
" condescendeth to accommodate his ways and proceedings" (not his
essence and being) "to our apprehensions;" wherein we are very far from
saying that "he speaks one thing and intends the clean contrary," but only

'O yap -ran dox.ti, TCUTH iiv<x.t Qaftiv. 'O Jf amifut TO.UTIJJI r»jv ir'urriv el vavv furTorifat
1ti. — Ariat. Nicoin. iii.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 65

that the things that he ascribes to himself, for our understanding and the
accommodation of his proceedings to the manner of men, are to be under
stood in him and of them in that which they denote of perfection, and
not in respect of that which is imperfect and weak.1 For instance, when
God says, " his eyes run to and fro, to behold the sons of men," we do
not say that he speaks one thing and understands another ; but only be
cause we have our knowledge and acquaintance with things by our eyes
looking up and down, therefore doth he who hath not eyes of flesh as we
have, nor hath any need to look up and down to acquaint himself with
them, all whose ways are in his own hand, nor can without blasphemy be
supposed to look from one thing to another, choose to express his know
ledge of and intimate acquaintance with all things here below, in and by
his own infinite understanding, in the way so suited to our apprehension.
Neither are these kinds of expressions in the least an occasion of idolatry,
or do give advantage to any of creating any shape of God in their ima
ginations, God having plainly and clearly, in the same word of his wherein
these expressions are used, discovered that of himself, his nature, being,
and properties, which will necessarily determine in what sense these ex
pressions are to be understood; as, in the consideration of the several
particulars in the ensuing discourse, the reader will find evinced. And we
are yet of the mind, that to conceive of God as a great man, with mouth,
eyes, hands, legs, etc., in a proper sense, sitting in heaven, shut up there,
troubled, vexed, moved up and down with sundry passions, perplexed
about the things that are to come to pass, which he knows not, — which
is th$ notion of God that Mr B. labours to deliver the world from their
darkness withal, — is gross idolatry, whereunto the scriptural attributions
unto God mentioned give not the least countenance ; as will in the pro
gress of our discourse more fully appear. And if it be true, which Mr B.
intimates, that "things implying imperfection" (speaking of sleep and being
weary) "are not properly attributed to God," I doubt not but I shall easily
evince that the same line of refusal is to pass over the visible shape and
turbulent affections which are by him ascribed to him. But of these more
particularly in their respective places.

But he adds, pp. 13, 14, " That this consideration is so pressing, that a
certain learned author, in his book entitled 'Conjectura Cabalistica/ affirms
that for Moses, by occasion of his writings, to let the Jews entertain a conceit
of God as in human shape was not any more a way to bring them into ido
latry than by acknowledging man to be God, as our religion doth in Christ ;"
which plea of his Mr B. exagitates in the pages following. That learned
gentleman is of age and ability to speak for himself: for mine own part, I
am not so clear in what he affirms as to undertake it for him, though other
wise very ready to serve him upon the account which I have of his worth
and abilities ; though I may freely say I suppose they might be better exer
cised than in such cabalistical conjectures as the book of his pointed unto
is full of. But who am I, that judge another ? We must every one give
an account of himself and his labours to God ; and the fire shall try our
works of what sort they are. I shall not desire to make too much work
for the fire. For the present, I deny that Moses in his writings doth give
any occasion to entertain a conceit of God as one of a human shape;
neither did the Jews ever stumble into idolatry on that account. They
sometimes, indeed, changed their glory for that which was not God ; but
whilst they worshipped that God that revealed himself by Moses, Jehovah,

1 "Quse dicuntur de Deo Mfu^naLiZt intclligenda sunt Simplest."1
VOL. XII. 5

€6 THE PREFACE OF MR B.IDDLE

Ehejeh, it doth not appear that ever they entertained in their thoughts any
thing butpurumnumen, a most simple, spiritual, eternal Being, as I shall give
a farther account afterward. Though they intended to worship Jehovah
both in the calf in the wilderness and in those at Bethel, yet that they
ever entertained any thoughts that God had such a shape 'as that which
they framed to worship him by is madness to imagine. For though Moses
sometimes speaks of God in the condescension before mentioned, express
ing his power by his arm, and bow, and sword, his knowledge and
understanding by his eye, yet he doth in so many places caution them
with whom he had to do of entertaining any thoughts of any bodily
similitude of God, that by any thing delivered by him there is not the
least occasion administered for the entertaining of such a conceit as is
intimated. Neither am I clear in the theological predication which that
learned person hath chosen to parallel with the Mosaical expressions of
God's shape and similitude, concerning man being God. Though we
acknowledge him who is man to be God, yet we do not acknowledge man
to be God. Christ under this reduplication, as man, is not a person, and so
not God. To say that man is God, is to say that the humanity and Deity
are the same. Whatever he is as man, he is upon the account of his being
man. Now, that he who is man is also God, though he be not God upon
the account of his being man, can give no more occasion to idolatry than
to say that God is infinite, omnipotent. For the expression itself, it being
in the concrete, it may be salved by the communication of properties; but
as it lies, it may possibly be taken in the abstract, and so is simply false.
Neither do I judge it safe to use such expressions, unless it be when the
grounds and reasons of them are assigned. But that Mr B. should be
offended with this assertion I see no reason. Both he and his associates
affirm that Jesus Christ as man (being in essence and nature nothing but
man) is made a God ; and is the object of divine worship or religious
adoration on that account. I may therefore let pass Mr B.'s following
harangue against "men's philosophical speculations, deserting the Scripture
in their contemplations of the nature of God, as though they could speak
more worthily of God than he hath done of himself;" for though it
may easily be made appear that never any of the Platonical philosophers
spoke so unworthily of God or vented such gross, carnal conceptions of
him as Mr B. hath done, and. the gentleman of whom he speaks be well
able to judge of what he reads, and to free himself from being entangled
in any of their notions, discrepant from the revelation that God hath made
of himself in his word, yet we, being resolved to try out the whole matter,
and to put all the differences we have with Mr B. to the trial and issue
upon the express testimony of God himself in his word, are not concerned
in this discourse.

Neither have I any necessity to divert to the consideration of his com
plaint concerning the bringing in of new expressions into religion, if he
intends such as whose substance or matter, which they do express, is not
evidently and expressly found in the Scripture. What is the " Babylonish
language," what are " the horrid and intricate expressions," which he
affirms to be " introduced under a colour of detecting and confuting here
sies, but indeed to put a baffle upon the simplicity of the Scripture," he
gives us an account of, p. 19, where we shall consider it and them. In
general, words are but the figures of things. It is not words and terms,
nor expressions, but doctrines and things, we inquire after.1 Mr B., I sup-

Ovx iv #£«, ^ttaXXov \i S/ava/a x.iiriii n ul.rjiia Greg. Naz.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. C7

pose, allows expositions of Scripture, or else I am sure he condemns him
self in what he practises. His book is, in his own thoughts, an exposition
of Scripture. That this cannot be done without varying the words and
literal expressions thereof, I suppose will not be questioned. To express
the same thing that is contained in any place of Scripture with such
other words as may give light unto it in our understandings, is to ex
pound it. This are we called to, and the course of it is to continue whilst
Christ continues a church upon the earth. Paul spake nothing, for the
substance of the things he delivered, but what was written in the prophets ;
that he did not use new expressions, not to be found in any of the pro
phets, will not be proved. But there is a twofold evil in these expressions :
" That they are invented to detect and exclude heresies, as is pretended." If
heretics begin first to wrest Scripture expressions to a sense never received
nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them who are willing to
" contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" to clear the mind of
God in his word by expressions and terms suitable thereunto ;x neither
have heretics carried on their cause without the invention of new words
and phrases.

If any shall make use of any words, terms, phrases, and expressions, in
and about religious things, requiring the embracing and receiving of those
words, etc., by others, without examining either the truth of what by those
words, phrases, etc., they intend to signify and express, or the propriety
of those expressions themselves, as to their accommodation for the signify
ing of those things, I plead not for them. It is not in the power of man
to make any word or expression, not \r\ruc, found in the Scripture, to
be canonical, and for its own sake to be embraced and received. * But
yet if any word or phrase do expressly signify any doctrine or matter
contained in the Scripture, though the word or phrase itself be not
in so many letters found in the Scripture, that such word or phrase may
Hot be used for the explication of the mind of God I suppose will not
easily be proved. And this we farther grant, that if any one shall scruple
the receiving and owning of such expressions, so as to make them the way
of professing that which is signified by them, and yet do receive the thing
or doctrine which is by them delivered, for my part I shall have no con
test with him. For instance, the word O/AOOIKT/O; was made use of by the first
Nicene council to express the unity of essence and being that is in the
Father and Son, the better to obviate Arius and his followers, with their
q'v orav ovx. qv, and the like forms of speech, nowhere found in Scripture,
and invented on set purpose to destroy the true and eternal deity of the
Son of God. If, now, any man should scruple the receiving of that word,
but withal should profess that he believes Jesus Christ to be God, equal
to the Father, one with him from the beginning, and doth not explain him
self by other terms not found in the Scripture, namely, that he was "made
a God," and is " one with the Father as to will, not essence," and the like,
he is like to undergo neither trouble nor opposition from me. We know
what troubles arose between the eastern and western churches about the

1 THv arav eux, «», oftmoinrias. Homo deificatus, etc., dixit Arius. 1. fiov £<• evx OITUII
<yi-ytv7,<r$ai. 2. ETva/ -rort on oi/x jfv, etc. — Sozorn. Hist. Ecclcs. lib. i. cap. xiv. p. 215 ;
Theod. Hist. lib. i. cap. ii. p. 3 ; Socrat. Scholast. Hist. lib. i. cap. iii. etc. ol» faty. yap
tnutriv TOU Koyiu Tau &i»u fpo; oiv@,a'X'ov, dXXa Sua vfoffToifftii it-tyt, xoii oiaipiffiv. E; Si xeii
a^-u'Tov, xai Ssov a.ir'ixa.Xti rat Xpifrov, aXXa. alx 'in u; rtft-i!;, aXXa tn ff%iffii, xai rn
liK'ua/ru, KO.TO. TO TKUTa u.'/./*r,X<ii; apiffxuv 2;a Tttv vwifio\nv T»j{ fiXicc;. Leont. de Sect. U6

Nestorio.
8 Vide Calv. Instit. lib. i. cap. xiii. ; Alting. Theol. Elenct. loc. de Deo.

63

words "hypostasis" and " persona," until they understood on each side that
by these different words the same thing was intended, and that vxoaraaie
with the Greeks was not the same as " substantia" with the Latins, nor
" persona" with the Latins the same with ffgoffuxov among the Greeks, as to
their application to the thing the one and the other expressed by these
terms. That such "monstrous terms are brought into our religion as neither
they that invented them nor they that use them do understand," Mr B.
may be allowed to aver, from the measure he hath taken of all men's under
standings, weighing them in his own, and saying, " Thus far can they go
and no farther," " This they can understand, that they cannot;" — a preroga
tive, as we shall see in the process of this business, that he will scarcely .
allow to God himself without his taking much pains and labour about it.
I profess, for my part, I have not as yet the least conviction fallen upon
me that Mr B. is furnished with so large an understanding, whatever
he insinuates of his own abilities, as to be allowed a dictator of what any
man can or cannot understand. If his principle, or rather conclusion, upon
which he limits the understandings of men be this, " What I cannot under
stand, that no man else can," he would be desired to consider that he is as
yet but a young man, who hath not had so many advantages and helps
for the improving of his understanding as some others have had ; and, be
sides, that there are some whose eyes are blinded by the god of this
world, that they shall never see or understand the things of God, yea,
and that God himself doth thus oftentimes execute his vengeance on them,
for detaining his truth in unrighteousness.

But yet, upon this acquaintance which he hath with the measure of
all men's understandings, he informs his reader that " the only way to
carry on the reformation of the church, beyond what yet hath been done by
Luther or Calvin, is by cashiering those many intricate terms and devised
forms of speaking," which he hath observed slily to couch false doctrines,
and to obtrude them on us ; and, by the way, that "this carrying on of refor
mation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin was never yet so much as sin
cerely endeavoured." In the former passage, having given out himself aa
a competent judge of the understandings of all men, in this he proceeds to
their hearts. " The reformation of the church," saith he, " was never sin
cerely attempted, beyond the stint of Luther and Calvin." Attempted it
hath been, but he knows all the men and their hearts full well who made
those attempts, and that they never did it sincerely, but with guile and
hypocrisy ! Mr B. knows who those are that say, " With our tongue
will we prevail ; our lips are our own." To know the hearts of men and
their frame towards himself, Mr B. instructs us, in his Catechism, that
God himself is forced to make trial and experiments ; but for his own
part, without any great trouble, he can easily pronounce of their sincerity
or hypocrisy in any undertaking! Low and vile thoughts of God will
quickly usher in light, proud, and foolish thoughts concerning ourselves.
Luther and Calvin were men whom God honoured above many in their
generation; and on that account we dare not but do so also. That all
church reformation is to be measured by their line, — that is, that no
farther discovery of truth, in, or about, or concerning the ways or works
of God, may be made, but what hath been made to them and by them, —
was not, that I know of, ever yet affirmed by any in or of any reformed
church in the world. The truth is, such attempts as this of Mr. B.'s to
overthrow all the foundations of Christian religion, to accommodate the
Gospel to the Alcoran, and subject all divine mysteries to the judgment
of that wisdom which is carnal and sensual, under the fair pretence of car-

. TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 69

rying on the work of reformation and of discovering truth from the Scrip
ture, have perhaps fixed some men to the measure they have received be
yond what Christian ingenuity and the love of the truth requireth of them.
A noble and free inquiry into the word of God, with attendance to all
ways by him appointed or allowed for the revelation of his mind, with
reliance on his gracious promise of " leading us into all truth" by his holy
and blessed Spirit, without whose aid, guidance, direction, light, and assist
ance, we can neither know, understand, nor receive the things that are of
God ; neither captivated to the traditions of our fathers, for whose labour
and pains in the work of the gospel, and for his presence with them, we
daily bless the name of our God; neither yet "carried about with every
wind of doctrine," breathed or insinuated by the " cunning sleight of men
who lie in wait to deceive," — is that which we profess. What the Lord
will be pleased to do with us by or in this frame, upon these principles ;
how, wherein, we shall serve our generation, in the revelation of his mind
and will, — is in his hand and disposal. About using or casting off words
and phrases, formerly used to express any truth or doctrine of the Scrip
ture, we will not contend with any, provided the»things themselves signi
fied by them be retained. This alone makes me indeed put any value on
any word or expression not gjjrwg found in the Scripture, namely, my
observation that they are questioned and rejected by none but such as, by
their rejection, intend and aim at the removal of the truth itself which by
them is expressed, and plentifully revealed in the word. The same care
also Avas among them of old, having the same occasion administered. Hence
when Valens,1 the Arian emperor, sent Modestus, his prsetorian prsefect,
to persuade Basil to be an Arian, the man entreated him not to be so rigid
as to displease the emperor and trouble the church, di o\iyrjv doypdruv
dxglZtiav, for an over-strict observance of opinions, it being but one word,
indeed one syllable, that made the difference, and he thought it not pru
dent to stand so much upon so small a business. The holy man replied,
Tot's Pilots Xoyoig svrfdpafAfAsvot irgossdai /&sv ruv §s/ojv doyftdruv olds fj.ia.v ave-
Xovrai ffuAXaCjjv — "However children might be so dealt withal, those who
are bred up in the Scriptures or nourished with the word will not suffer
one syllable of divine truth to be betrayed." The like attempt to this of
Valens and Modestus upon Basil was made by the Arian bishops at the
council of Ariminum,2 who pleaded earnestly for the rejection of one or
two words uot found in the Scripture, laying on that plea much weight,
when it was the eversion of the deity of Christ which they intended and
attempted. And by none is there more strength and evidence given to
this observation than by him with whom I have now to do, who, exclaim
ing against words and expressions, intends really the subversion of all the
most fundamental and substantial truths of the gospel; and therefore, hav
ing, pp. 19-21, reckoned up many expressions which he dislikes, con
demns, and would have rejected, most of them relating to the chiefest
heads of our religion (though, to his advantage, he cast in by the way two
or three gross figments), he concludes " that as the forms of speech by him
recounted are not used in the Scripture, no more are the things signified
by them contained therein." In the issue, then, all the quarrel is fixed
upon the things themselves, which, if they were found in Scripture, the
expressions insisted on might be granted to suit them well enough. What
need, then, all this long discourse about words and expressions, when it is

1 Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. cap. xvii. p. 126; Socrat. lib. iv. cap. xxi. xxii. ; Sozom.
lib. vi. cap. xv.-xvii.
8 Theod. Hist. lib. ii. cap. xviii. ; Sozom. lib. iv. cap. xiii. ; Niceph. lib. ix. cap. xxxix.

70 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the things themselves signified by them that are the abominations decried?
Now, though most of the things here pointed unto will fall under our en
suing considerations, yet because Mr B. hath here cast into one heap many
of the doctrines which in the Christian religion he opposeth and would
have renounced, it may not be amiss to take a short view of the most con
siderable instances in our passage.

His first is of God's being infinite and incomprehensible. This he con
demns, name and thing, — that is, he says " he is finite, limited, of us to
be comprehended; " for those who say he is infinite and incomprehensible
do say only that he is not finite nor of us to be comprehended. What
advance is made towards the farther reformation of the church1 by this new
notion of Mr B.'s is fully discovered in the consideration of the second
chapter of his Catechism; and in this, as in sundry other things, Mr B.
excels his masters.2 The Scripture tells us expressly that "he filleth heaven
and earth;" that the "heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain
him;" that his presence is in heaven and hell, and that " his understanding
is infinite" (which IIOAV the understanding of one that is finite may be, an
infinite understanding cannot comprehend); that he "dwelleth in that light
which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen, nor can see"
(which to us is the description of one incomprehensible); that he is " eter
nal," which we cannot comprehend. The like expressions are used of him in
great abundance. Besides, if God be not incomprehensible, we may search
out his power, wisdom, and understanding to the utmost ; for if we cannot,
if it be not possible so to do, he is incomprehensible. But " canst thou
by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty to perfec
tion?" " There is no searching of his understanding." If by our lines we
suppose we can fathom the depth of the essence, omnipotency, wisdom,
and understanding of God, I doubt not but we shall find ourselves mis
taken. Were ever any, since the world began, before quarrelled withal
for asserting the essence and being of God to be incomprehensible? The
heathen who affirmed that the more he inquired, the more he admired
and the less he understood,8 had a more noble reverence of the eternal
Being* which in his mind he conceived, than Mr B. will allow us to enter
tain of God. Farther; if God be not infinite, he is circumscribed in some
certain place; if he be, is he there fixed to that place, or doth he move
from it? If he be fixed there, how can he work at a distance, especially
such things as necessarily require divine power to their production ? If
he move up and down, and journey as his occasions require, what a blessed
enjoyment of himself in his own glory hath he! But that this blasphe
mous figment of God's being limited and confined to a certain place is
really destructive to all the divine perfections of the nature and being
of God is afterward demonstrated. And this is the first instance given
by Mr B. of the corruption of our doctrine, which he rejects name
and thing, namely, " that God is infinite and incomprehensible." And
now, whether this man be a " mere Christian" or a mere Lucian, let the
reader judge.

That God is a simple act is the next thing excepted against and de-

1 " Solent quidam miriones aedificari in ruinam."— Tertul. de Prsesc. ad Haeres.
*"Est autem haec magnitude (ut ex iis intelligi potcst, quaade potentia et potestate.
Dei, itemque de sapientia ejus dicta sunt), infinita et incomprehensibilis." — Crell. de Deo,
seu de Vera Rel. praefix. op. Volkel. lib. i. cap xxxvii. p. 273.

• Simonides apud Ciceronem, lib i. de Nat. Deorum, lib. i. 22.

« Vide pnssim quae de Deo dicuntur, apud Araturn, Orpheum, Homerum, Asclepium,
Platonem, Plotinum, Proclum, Psellum, Porphyrium, Jamblichum, Plinium, Tullium,
Senecam, Plutarclium, et quae ex iis omnibus excerpsit. Eugub. de Prim. Philos.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 71

cried, name and thing ; in the room whereof, that he is compounded of
matter 'and form," or the like, must be asserted. Those who affirm God
to be a simple act do only deny him to be compounded of divers prin
ciples, and assert him to be always actually in being, existence, and intent
operation.1 God says of himself that his name isEhejeh, and he is I AM, —
that is, a simple being, existing in and of itself; and this is that which is
intended by the simplicity of the nature of God, and his being a simple
act. The Scripture tells us he is eternal, I AM, always the same, and so
never what he was not ever. This is decried, and in opposition to it
his being compounded, and so obnoxious to dissolution, and his being
in potentia, in a disposition and passive capacity to be what he is not, is
asserted ; for it is only to deny these things that the term " simple" is
used, which he condemns and rejects. And this is the second instance
that Mr B. gives in the description of his God, by his rejecting the re
ceived expressions concerning him who is so : " He is limited, and of us to
be comprehended; his essence and being consisting of several principles,
whereby he is in a capacity of being what he is not." Mr B., solus habeto;
I will not be your rival in the favour of this God.

And this may suffice to this exception of Mr B., by the way, against
the simplicity of the being of God; yet, because he doth not directly op
pose it afterward, and the asserting of it doth clearly evert all his follow
ing fond imaginations of the shape, corporeity, and limitedness of the
essence of God (to which end also I shall, in the consideration of his
several depravations of the truth concerning the nature of God, insist upon
it), I shall a little here divert to the explication of what we intend by the
simplicity of the essence of God, and confirm the truth of what we so in
tend thereby.

As was, then, intimated before, though simplicity seems to be a positive
term, or to denote something positively, yet indeed it is a pure negation,9
and formally, immediately, and properly, denies multiplication, composi
tion, and the like. And though this only it immediately denotes, yet there
is a most eminent perfection of the nature of God thereby signified to us ;
which is negatively proposed, because it is in the use of things that are
proper to us, in which case we can only conceive what is not to be ascribed
to God. Now, not to insist on the metaphysical notions and distinctions
of simplicity, by the ascribing of it to God we do not only deny that he
is compounded of divers principles really distinct, but also of such as are
improper, and not of such a real distance, or that he is compounded of
any thing, or can be compounded with any thing whatever.

First, then, that this is a property of God's essence or being is manifest
from his absolute independence and fastness in being and operation, which
God often insists upon in the revelation of himself: Isa. xliv. 6, " I am
the first, and I am the last ; and beside me there is no God." Eev. i. 8,
" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord,
•which is," etc.: so chap. xxi. 6, xxii.13. Which also is fully asserted, Eom.
xi. 35, 36, "Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto
him again? for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things : to whom

1 " Via rcmotionis utendum est, in Dei cpnsideratione : nam divina substantia sua im-
mensitate cxcedit cmnem forniam, quam intellectus roster intelligit, unde ipsum non
possumus exacte cognoscere quid sit, sed quid non sit." — Thorn. Con. Gentes, lib. i. cap.
xiv. " Meiito dictum est a veteribus, potius in hac vita de Deo a nobis cognosci quid
non sit, quam quid sit ; ut enim cognoscamus quid Deus non sit, negatione nimirum
aliqua, quae prppria sit divinse essentiae, satis est unica negatio dependentiaB," etc. —
Socin. ad lib. ii. cap i. ; Metaph. Arist. q. 2, sect. 4.

* Suarez. Metaph. torn. ii. disput. 30, sect. 3; Cajetan. de Ente et Essen, cap. ii.

72 THE PREFACE OF MR EIDDLE

be glory for ever." Now, if God were of any causes, internal or external,
any principles antecedent or superior to him, he could not be so absolutely
first and independent. Were he composed of parts, accidents, manner of
being, he could not be first ; for all these are before that which is of them,
and therefore his essence is absolutely simple.

Secondly, God is absolutely and perfectly one and the same, and nothing
differs from his essence in it : " The LORD our God is one LORD," Deut. vi. 4 ;
" Thou art the same," Ps. cii. 27. And where there is an absolute oneness
and sameness in the whole, there is no composition by an union of extremes.
Thus is it with God : his name is, " I AM ; I AM THAT I AM," Exod. iii.
14, 15 ; " Which is," Rev. i. 8. He, then, who is what he is, and whose all
that is in him is, himself, hath neither parts, accidents, principles, nor any
thing else, whereof his essence should be compounded.

Thirdly, The attributes of God, which alone seem to be distinct things in
the essence of God, are all of them essentially the same with one another, and
every one the same with the essence of God itself. For, first, they are
spoken one of another as well as of God ; as there is his "eternal power" as
well as his " Godhead." And, secondly, they are either infinite and infinitely
perfect, or they are not. If they are, then if they are not the same with
God, there are more things infinite than one, and consequently more Gods;
for that which is absolutely infinite is absolutely perfect, and consequently
God. If they are not infinite, then God knows not himself, for a finite
wisdom cannot know perfectly an infinite being. And this might be far
ther confirmed by the particular consideration of all kinds of composition,
with a manifestation of the impossibility of their attribution unto God ;
arguments to which purpose the learned reader knows where to find in
abundance.

Fourthly, Yea, that God is, and must needs be, a simple act (which ex
pression Mr B. fixes on for the rejection of it) is evident from this one con
sideration, which was mentioned before : If he be not so, there must be some
potentiality in God. Whatever is, and is not a simple act, hath a possibility
to be perfected by act; if this be in God, he is not perfect, nor all-sufficient.
Every composition whatever is of power and act ; which if it be, or might
have been in God, he could not be said to be immutable, which the Scrip
ture plentifully witnesseth that he is.

These are some few of the grounds of this affirmation of ours concerning
the simplicity of the essence of God ; which when Mr B. removes and
answers, he may have more of them, which at present there is no necessity
to produce.

From his being he proceeds to his subsistence, and expressly rejects his
subsisting in three persons, name and thing. That this is no new attempt,
no undertaking whose glory Mr B. may arrogate to himself, is known.
Hitherto God hath taken thought for his own glory, and eminently con
founded the opposers of the subsistence of his essence in three distinct
persons. Inquire of them that went before, and of the dealings of God
with them of old. What is become of Ebion, Cerinthus, Paulus Samosatenus,
Theodotus Byzantimis, Photinus, Arius, Macedonius, etc.? Hath not God
made their memory to rot, and their names to be an abomination to all
generations ? How they once attempted to have taken possession of the
churches of God, making slaughter and havoc of all that opposed them,
hath been declared; but their place long since knows them no more. By
the subsisting of God in any person, no more is intended than that person's
being God. If that person be God, God subsists in that person. If you
grant the Father to be a person (as the Holy Ghost expressly affirms liim

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 73

to be, Heb. i. 3) and to be God, you grant God to subsist in that person :
that is all which by that expression is intended. The Son is God, or is
not. To say he is not God, is to beg that which cannot be proved. If he
be God, he is the Father, or he is another person. If he be the Father,
he is not the Son. That he is the Son and not the Son is sufficiently
contradictory. If he be not the Father, as was said, and yet be God, he
may have the same nature and substance with the Father (for of our God
there is but one essence, nature, or being), and yet be distinct from him.
That distinction from him is his personality, — that property whereby and
from whence he is the Son. The like is to be said of the Holy Ghost.
The thing, then, here denied is, that the Son is God, or that the Holy Ghost
is God : for if they are so, God must subsist in three persons ; of which
more afterward. Now, is this not to be found in the Scriptures ? Is there
no text affirming Christ to be God, to be one with the Father, or that the
Holy Ghost is so ? no text saying, " There are three that bear record in
heaven ; and these three are one?" none ascribing divine perfections, divine
worship distinctly to either Son or Spirit, and yet jointly to one God ?
Are none of these things found in the Scripture, that Mr B. thinks with one
bhist to demolish all these ancient foundations, and by his bare authority
to deny the common faith of the present saints, and that wherein their pre
decessors in the worship of God are fallen asleep in peace? The proper
place for the consideration of these things will farther manifest the abomi
nation of this bold attempt against the Son of God and the Eternal Spirit.

For the divine tircumincession, mentioned in the next place, I shall only
say that it is not at all in my intention to defend all the expressions that
any men have used (who are yet sound in the main) in the unfolding of
this great, tremendous mystery of the blessed Trinity, and I could heartily
wish that they had some of them been less curious in their inquiries and
less bold in their expressions. It is the thing itself alone whose faith I
desire to own and profess ; and therefore I shall not in the least labour to
retain and hold those things or words which may be left or lost without
any prejudice thereunto.

Briefly ; by the barbarous term of " mutual circumincession," the school
men understand that which the Greek fathers called I^Tsg/^woTjovg, whereby
they expressed that mystery, which Christ himself teaches us, of " his
being in the Father, and the Father in him," John x. 38, and of the
Father's dwelling in him, and doing the works he did, chap. xiv. 10, —
the distinction of these persons being not hereby taken away, but the dis
junction of them as to their nature and being.

The eternal generation of the Son is in the next place rejected, that he
may be sure to cast down every thing that looks towards the assertion of
his deity, whom yet the apostle affirms to be " God blessed for ever," Rom.
ix. 5. That the Word, which " in the beginning was" (and therefore is)
*.' God," is " the only begotten of the Father," the apostle affirms, John i.
14. That he is also " the only begotten Son of God" we have other plenti
ful testimonies, Ps. ii. 7 ; John iii. 16 ; Acts xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 4-6 ; — a Son
so as, in comparison of his sonship, the best of sons by adoption are ser
vants, Heb. iii. 5, 6 ; and so begotten as to be an only Son, John i. 14 ;
though, begotten by grace, God hath many sons, James i. 18. Christ, then,
being begotten of the Father, hath his generation of the Father ; for these
are the very same things in words of a diverse sound. The only question
here is, whether the Son have the generation so often spoken of from
eternity or in time, — whether it be an eternal or a temporal generation
from whence he is so said to be " begotten." As Christ is a Son, so by hinx

74 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

the " worlds were made," Heb. i. 2, so that surely he had his sonship be
fore he took flesh in the fulness of time; and when he had his sonship he
had his generation. He is such a Son as, by being partaker of that name,
he is exalted above angels, Heb. i. 5 ; and he is the " first begotten "
before he is brought into the world, verse 6 : and therefore his " goings
forth " are said to be " from the days of eternity," Micah v. 2 ; and he had
" glory with the Father" (as the Son) " before the world was," John xvii. 5.
Neither is he said to be " begotten of the Father" in respect of his incarna
tion, but conceived by the Holy Ghost, or formed in the womb by him, of
the substance of his mother ; nor is he thence called the " Son of God."
In brief, if Christ be the eternal Son of God, Mr B. will not deny him
to have had an eternal generation : if he be not, a generation must be
found out for him suitable to the sonship which he hath ; of which abo
mination in its proper place.

This progress have we made in Mr. B.'s creed: He believes God to be
finite, to be by us comprehended, compounded; he believes there is no
trinity of persons in the Godhead, — that Christ is not the eternal Son of
God. The following parts of it are of the same kind : —

The eternal procession of the Holy Ghost is nextly rejected. The Holy Ghost
being constantly termed the " Spirit of God," the " Spirit of the Father,"
and the " Spirit of the Son" (being also " God," as shall afterward be evinc
ed), and so partaking of the same nature with Father and Son (the apostle
granting that God hath a nature, in his rejecting of them who " by nature
are no gods "), is yet distinguished from them, and that eternally (as no
thing is in the Deity that is not eternal), and being, moreover, said JJCTO-
gi-jzffQa.1, or to " proceed" and " go forth " from the Father and Son, this
expression of his " eternal procession " hath been fixed on, manifesting the
property whereby he is distinguished from Father and Son. The thing in
tended hereby is, that the Holy Ghost, who is God, and is said to be of the
Father and the Son, is by that name, of his being of them, distinguished
from them ; and the denial hereof gives you one article more of Mr B.'s
creed, namely, that the Holy Ghost is not God. To what that expression
of " proceeding " is to be accommodated will afterward be considered.

The incarnation of Christ (the Deity and Trinity being despatched) is
called into question, and rejected. By " incarnation" is meant, as the word
imports, a taking of flesh (this is variously by the ancients expressed, but
the same thing still intended1), or being made so. The Scripture affirming
that " the Word was made flesh," John i. 14 ; that " God was manifest in
the flesh," 1 Tim. iii. 16; that " Christ took part of flesh and blood," Heb.
ii. 14 ; that " he took on him the seed of Abraham," chap. ii. 16 ; that he
was " made of a woman," Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; sent forth " in the likeness of sin
ful flesh," Rom. viii. 3 ; "in all things made like unto his brethren," Heb.
ii. 17, — we thought we might have been allowed to say so also, and that this
expression might have escaped with a less censure than an utter rejection
out of Christian religion. The Son of God taking flesh, and so being
made like to us, that he might be the " captain of our salvation," is that
which by this word (and that according to the Scripture) is affirmed, and
which, to increase the heap of former abominations (or to " carry on the
work of reformation beyond the stint of Luther or Calvin"), is here by Mr
B. decried.

Of the hypostatical union there is the same reason. Christ, who as

Ettracpxaffif VifttftJarttflf Itavfyuvrviri;- ft ^nrfenxti IftStifiia- fi •JTafovff'ia,' J) oixovo/uiz"
ft dine ffttfx.es oft.it.ia- « S/ uy^pafirnns <pa,»ipu<rif (i 'i/.ivsi;- f> xivuffif r\ rev Xpifrou ««-

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 75

** concerning the flesh" was of the Jews, and is God to be blessed for
ever, over all, Rom. ix. 5, is one person. Being God to be blessed over all,
that is, God by nature (for such as are not so, and yet take upon them to
be gods, God will destroy), and having " flesh and blood as the children "
have, Heb. ii. 14, that is, the same nature of man with believers, yet
being but one person, one mediator, one Christ, the Son of God, we say
both these natures of God and man are united in that one person, namely,
the person of the Son of God. This is that which Mr B. rejects (now his
hand is in), both name and thing. The truth is, all these things are but
colourable advantages wherewith he laboureth to amuse poor souls. Grant
the deity of Christ, and he knows all these particulars will necessarily
ensue ; and whilst he denies the foundation, it is to no purpose to contend
about any consequences or inferences whatever. And whether we have
ground for the expression under present consideration, John i. 14, 18, xx.
28 ; Acts xx. 28 ; Rom. i. 3, 4, ix. 5 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Phil. ii. 5-8 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 16 ; 1 John i. 1, 2 ; Rev. v. 12-14, with innumerable other testimonies
of Scripture, may be considered. If " the Word, the Son of God, was
made flesh, made of a woman, took our nature," wherein he was pierced
and wounded, and shed his blood, and yet continues " our Lord and our
God, God blessed for ever," esteeming it " no robbery to be equal with
his Father," yet being a person distinct from him, being the " brightness
of his person," we fear not to say that the two natures of God and man
are united in one person ; which is the hypostatical union here rejected.

The communication of properties, on which depend two or three of the
following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the
union before asserted ; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly de
livered in Scripture than the truths before mentioned.1 It is affirmed of
" the man Christ Jesus" that he " knew what was in the heart of man," that
he " would be with his unto the end of the world," and Thomas, putting
his hand into his side, cried out to him, " My Lord and my God," etc.,
when Christ neither did nor was so, as he was man.2 Again, it is said
that " God redeemed his church with his own blood," that the " Son of God
was made of a woman," that " the Word was made flesh," none of which
can properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word,8 in respect of
that nature whereby he is so ; and therefore we say, that look what pro
perties are peculiar to either of his natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipo
tent, to be the object of divine worship, to the Deity ;* to be born, to bleed,
and die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein
both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that
" God redeemed his church with his own blood," or that he was " made
flesh ;" or whereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of
Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed
Virgin the Mother of God, — the intendment of the one and other is no
more but that he was truly God, who in his manhood was a son, had a
mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions we affirm to
be founded in this " communication of properties," or the assignment of

i " Non ut Deus esset habitator, natura humana esset habitaculum : sed ut naturae
alter! sic misceretur altera, ut quamvis alia sit quae suscipitur, alia vero quse suscipit,
in tantam tamen unitatem conveniret utriusque diversitas, ut unus idemque sit Filius,
qui se, et secundum quod unus homo est, Patre dicit minorem, et secundum quod unus
I)eus est, Patri se profitetur aequalem." — Leo Serm. iii. de Nat.

8 Ttli; /j.\v TUfiivovs Xoyoi/s ru IK Manias avfy&wy, THUS ol awy/Ati/ov;, xai Qieffivtii TM

i» ipxy '**' **'<>yy- — Thcod. Dial. 'A<rvy%.

* taJuTo, -jeavra, trvftSo^a rapxos rns «"•« yws tlz.H/tft'ivv;- — Iren. lib. iii. ad. Hseres.

* " Salva proprietate utriusque naturae, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a Yirtute
infirmitas, ab aeternitate modalitas." — Leo. Ep. ad Flavi.

76 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

that unto the person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or
man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one
or other, God on this account being said to do what is proper to man,
and man what is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and
man doth both the one and the other.1 By what expressions and with
what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christ's personal union
against both Nestorius and Eutyches,2 the one of them dividing his per
son into two, the other confounding his natures by an absurd confusion
and mixture of their respective essential properties (Mr B. not giving
occasion), I shall not farther mention.

And this is all Mr B. instances in of what he rejects as to our doctrine
about the nature of God, the Trinity, person of Christ, and the Holy
Ghost ; of all which he hath left us no more than what the Turks and other
Mohammedans will freely acknowledge.3 And whether this be to be a
" mere Christian," or none at all, the pious reader will judge.

Having dealt thus with the person of Christ, he adds the names of two
abominable figments, to give countenance to his undertaking, wherein he
knows those with whom he hath to do have no communion, casting the deity
of Christ and the Holy Ghost into the same bundle with transubstantiation
and consubstantiation ; to which he adds the ubiquity of the body of Christ,
after mentioned, — self-contradicting fictions. With what sincerity, can
dour, and Christian ingenuity, Mr B. hath proceeded, in rolling up to
gether such abominations as these with the most weighty and glorious
truths of the gospel, that together he might trample them under his feet in
the mire, God will certainly in due time reveal to himself and all the world.

The next thing he decries is original sin (I will suppose Mr B. knows
what those whom he professeth to oppose intend thereby) ; and this he
condemns, name and thing. That the guilt of our first father's sin is im
puted to his posterity; that they are made obnoxious to death thereby,
that we are "by nature children of wrath, dead in trespasses and sins,
conceived in sin; that our understandings are darkness, so that we cannot
receive the things that are of God ; that we are able to do no good of our
selves, so that unless we are born again we cannot enter into the kingdom
of God; that we are alienated, enemies, have carnal minds, that are enmity
against God, and cannot be subject to him;"* — all this and the like is at
once blown away by Mr B.; there is no such thing. "Una litura potest."
That Christ by nature is not God, that we by nature have no sin, are the
two great principles of this " mere Christian's" belief.

Of Christ's taking our nature upon him, which is again mentioned, we
have spoken before. If he was "made flesh, made of a woman, made under
the law ; if he partook of flesh and blood because the children partake of
the same ; if he took on him the seed of Abraham, and was made like to
us in all things, sin only excepted; if, being in the form of God and equal
to him, he took on him the form of a servant, and became like to us," — he
took our nature on him;5 for these, and these only, are the things which
by that expression are intended.

Owros iffrlv o rpivcs aiii^ufftus, \xa.rifa.; Qvffitts a.vri%ibovffrit rti IxaTifa TO. fJ/a, $/*
«r»» T»; vrnarairttai TavrertiTtf, xeci <riit tig aXXflXa aurut •rifi^uftiffii. — Damas. de Orthod.
Fide, lib. iii. cap. iv.

'AXntHHi, -riXiwj, aSiKifirus, eifvy^uras. — Vide Evagrium, lib. i. cap. ii. iii. ; Socrat.
Hist. lib. vii. cap. xxix. xxxii. xxxiii. ; Niceph. lib. xiv. cap. xlvii. s Vid. lob..

Hen. Hotting. Hist. Oriental., lib. i. cap. iii. ex Alko, sura. 30. * Rom. v. 12, 15, 16,
19 ; Eph. ii. 1-3 ; Ps. Ii 5 ; John i. 5 ; Eph. iv. 18 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; John iii. 5, « ; Eph,
ii. 12; CoL i. 21 ; Rom. viii. 6-& « Jolin L 14; Gal. iv. 4, 5; Heb. ii. 14, 16, 17; PiiiL

-

ii. 6-8.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 77

The most of what follows is about the grace of Christ, which, having
destroyed what in him lies his person, he doth also openly reject ; and
in the first place begins with the foundation, his making satisfaction to
God for our sins, all our sins, past, present, and to come, which also, under
sundry other expressions, he doth afterward condemn. God is a God
of " purer eyes than to behold evil," and it is " his judgment that they
which commit sin are worthy of death ; " yea, " it is a righteous thing with
him to render tribulation" to offenders;1 and seeing we have "all sinned and
come short of the glory of God," doubtless it will be a righteous thing with
him to leave them to answer for their own sins who so proudly and con
temptuously reject the satisfaction which he himself hath appointed and the
ransom he hath found out.2 But Mr B. is not the first who hath " erred,
not knowing the Scriptures " nor the justice of God. The Holy Ghost
acquainting us that " the LORD made to meet upon him the iniquity of
us all ; that he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniqui
ties, and that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his
stripes we are healed ; that he gave his life a ransom for us, and was made
sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him ; that
he was for us made under the law and underwent the curse of it; that
he bare our sins in his body on the tree ; and that by his blood we are
redeemed, washed, and saved,"3 — we doubt not to speak as we believe,
namely, that Christ underwent the punishment due to our sins, and made
satisfaction to the justice of God for them ; and Mr B., who it seems is
otherwise persuaded, we leave to stand or fall to his own account.

Most of the following instances of the doctrines he rejects belong to
and may be reduced to the head last mentioned, and therefore I shall but
touch upon them. Seeing that "he that will enter into life must keep
the commandments, and this of ourselves we cannot do, for in many
things we offend all, and he that breaks one commandment is guilty
of the breach of the whole law,* God having sent forth his Son, made of
a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,
that we might receive the adoption of children ; and that which was
impossible to us by the law, through the weakness of the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in
us; and so we are saved by his life, being justified by his blood, he being
made unto us of God righteousness, and we are by faith found in him, hav-
'ing on not our own righteousness, which is by the law, but that which
is by Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God by faith;"5 — we do affirm
that Christ fulfilled the law for us, not only undergoing the penalty of
it, but for us submitting to the obedience of it, and performing all that
righteousness which of us it requires, that we might have a complete
righteousness wherewith to appear before God. And this is that which
is intended by the active and passive righteousness of Christ, after men
tioned ; all which is rejected, name and thing.

Of Christ's being punished by God, which he rejects in the next place,
and, to multiply his instances of our false doctrines, insists on it again un
der the terms of Christ's enduring the wrath of God and the pains of a
damned man, the same account is to be given as before of his satisfac
tion. That God "bruised him, put him to grief, laid the chastisement of

1 Hab. i. 13 ; Rom. i. 32 ; 2 Thess. i. 6. « Job xxxiii. 24. « Isa. liii. 5, 6, 10, 11 ;
IPet. ii. 24; Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 18, ii. 24;
Eph. i. 7 ; Rev. i. 5, 6, etc. 4 Matt xix. 17; 1 John i. 8; James ii. 10. « Gal. iv.

4, 5 ; Horn. viii. 3, 4, T. 9, x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; Phil. iii. 8-10.

78 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

our peace on him;1 that for us he underwent death, the curse of the law,
which inwrapped the whole punishment due to sin, and that by the will
of God, who so made him to be sin who knew no sin, and in the under
going whereof he prayed and cried, and sweat blood, and was full of heavi
ness and perplexity,"2 — the Scripture is abundantly evident; and what
we assert amounts not one tittle beyond what is by and in it affirmed.

The false doctrine of the merit of Christ, and his purchasing for us the
kingdom of heaven, is the next stone which this master-builder disallows
and rejects. That " Christ hath bought us with a price; that he hath re
deemed us from our sins, the world, and curse, to be a peculiar people,
zealous of good works, so making us kings and priests to God for ever;
that he hath obtained for us eternal redemption, procuring the Spirit for
us, to make us meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, God bless
ing us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in him, upon the
account of his making his soul an offering for sin," performing that obedi
ence to the law which of us is required,8 — is that which by this expression
of the "merit of Christ" we intend, the fruit of it being all the accom
plishment of the promise made to him by the Father, upon his undertaking
the great work of saving his people from their sins. In the bundle of doc
trines by Mr B. at once condemned, this also hath its place.

That Christ rose from tfie dead by his own power seems to us to be true,
not only because he affirmed that he " had power so to do, even to lay
down his life and to take it again," John x. 18, but also because he said
he would do so when he bade them " destroy the temple," and told them
that " in three days he would raise it again." It is true that this work
of raising Christ from the dead is also ascribed to the Father and to the
Spirit (as in the work of his oblation, his Father " made his soul an offer
ing for sin," and he " offered up himself through the eternal Spirit"), yet
this hinders not but that he was raised by his own power, his Father and
he being one, and what work his Father doth he doing the same.

And this is the account which this " mere Christian " giveth us concern
ing his faith in Christ, his person, and his grace : He is a mere man, that
neither satisfied for our sins nor procured grace or heaven for us ; and how
much this tends to the honour of Christ and the good of souls, all that
love him in sincerity will judge and determine.

His next attempt is upon the way whereby the Scripture affirms that
we come to be made partakers of the good things which Christ hath done
and wrought for us ; and in the first place he falls foul upon that of ap
prehending and applying Christ's righteousness to ourselves by faith, that so
there may no weighty point of the doctrine of the cross remain not con
demned (by this wise man) of folly. This, then, goes also, name and thing :
Christ is "of God made unto us righteousness" (that is, "to them that
believe on him," or " receive" or " apprehend" him, John i. 12), God " hav
ing set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare
his righteousness for the forgiveness of sins," and declaring that every one
who " believeth in him is justified from all things from which he could not
be justified by the law," God imputing righteousness to them that so be
lieve ; those who are so justified by faith having peace with God. It being
the great thing we have to aim at, namely, that " we may know Jesus
Christ, and the fellowship of his sufferings, and the power of his resurrection,
and be found in him, not having our own righteousness, which is of the

1 Isa. liii. 5, 6, etc. » Heb. ii. 9, 14, x. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21; Luke xxii. 41-44.

» 1 Cor. vi. 20; 1 Pet. i. 18; Gal. i..4, iii. 13; Titus ii. 14; Eph. v. 26,27; Rev. i. 5, 6;
Heb. it 12-14; Eph. i. 3; Phil. i. 29.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 79

law, but the righteousness which is by the faith of Christ, Christ being the
end of the law to every one that believeth,"1 — we say it is the duty of
every one who is called, to apprehend Christ by faith, and apply his righte
ousness to him; that is, to believe on him as " made the righteousness of
God to him," unto justification and peace. And if Mr B. reject this doc
trine, name and thing, I pray God give him repentance before it be too
late, to the acknowledgment of the truth.

Of Christ's being our surely, of Christ's paying our debt, of our sins im
puted to Christ, of Christ's righteousness imputed to us, of Christ's dying to
appease the wrath of God and reconcile him to us, enough hath been spoken
already to clear the meaning of them who use these expressions, and to
manifest the truth of that which they intend by them, so that I shall not
need again to consider them as they lie in this disorderly, confused heap
which we have here gathered together.

Our justification by Christ being cashiered, he falls upon our sanctijica-
tion in the next place, that he may leave us as little of Christians as he
hath done our Saviour of the true Messiah. Infused grace is first assault
ed. The various acceptations of the word " grace" in the Scripture this
is no place to insist upon. By " grace infused" we mean grace really be
stowed upon us, and abiding in us, from the Spirit of God. That a new
spiritual life or principle, enabling men to live to God, — that new, gracious,
heavenly qualities and endowments, as light, love, joy, faith, etc., bestowed
on men, — are called " grace" and " graces of the Spirit,"2 1 suppose will not
be denied. These we call " infused grace" and " graces;" that is, we say
God works these things in us by his Spirit, giving us a " new heart and
a new spirit, putting his law into our hearts, quickening us who were dead
in trespasses and sins, making us light who were darkness, filling us with
the fruits of the Spirit in joy, meekness, faith, which are not of ourselves
but the gifts of God." s Mr B. having before disclaimed all original sin,
or the depravation of our nature by sin, in deadness, darkness, obstinacy,
etc., thought it also incumbent on him to disown and disallow all repara
tion of it by grace; and all this under the name of a " mere Christian,"
not knowing that he discovereth a frame of spirit utterly unacquainted
with the main things of Christianity.

Free grace is next doomed to rejection. That all the grace, mercy,
goodness of God, in our election, redemption, calling, sanctification, par
don, and salvation, is free, not deserved, not merited, nor by us any way
procured, — that God doth all that he doth for us bountifully, fully, freely,
of his own love and grace, — is affirmed in this expression, and intended
thereby. And is this found neither name nor thing in the Scriptures ?
Is there no mention of " God's loving us freely; of his blotting out our
sins for his own sake, for his name's sake; of his giving his Son for us
from his own love; of faith being not of ourselves, being the gift of God ;
of his saving us, not according to the works of righteousness which we
have done, but of his own mercy; of his justifying us by his grace, be
getting us of his own will, having mercy on whom he will have mercy ;
of a covenant not like the old, wherein he hath promised to be merciful
to our unrighteousness," etc.?* or is it possible that a man assuming to
himself the name of a Christian should be ignorant of the doctrine of the
free grace of God, or oppose it and yet profess not to reject the gospel as a

1 Rom. iii, 25 ; Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; Rom. iv. 5, 8, v. 1 ; Phil. iii. 9, 10 ; Rom. x. 3, 4.
1 Eph. ii. 1, 2 ; Gal. v. 23-25. 3 Phil. i. 6, ii. 13 ; Jer. xxxi. 33, xxxii. 39; Ezek.

xi. 19. xxxvi. 26, 27 ; Heb. viii. 10. * Eph. i. 4 ; John iii. 16 ; 1 John iv. 8, 10 ; Rom.
T. 8 ; Eph. ii. 8 ; Tit. iii. 3-7; James i. 18 ; Rom. ix. 18 ; Heb. viii. 10-12.

80 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

fable? But this was, and ever will be, the condemnation of some, that "light
is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light."

About the next expression, of the world of the elect, I shall not con
tend. That by the name of " the world" (which term is used in the Scrip
tures in great variety of significations), the elect, as being in and of this
visible world, and by nature no better than the rest of the inhabitants
thereof, are sometimes peculiarly intended, is proved elsewhere,1 beyond
whatever Mr B. is able to oppose thereunto.

Of the irresistible working of the Spirit, in bringing men to believe, the
condition is otherwise. About the term "irresistible" I know none that
care much to strive. That " faith is the gift of God, not of ourselves,
that it is wrought in us by the exceeding greatness of the power of God;
that in bestowing it upon us by his Spirit (that is, in our conversion), God
effectually creates a new heart in us, makes us new creatures, quickens us,
raises us from the dead, working in us to will and to do of his own good
pleasure; as he commanded light to shine out of darkness, so shining
into our hearts, to give us the knowledge of his glory;2 begetting us anew
of his own will," so irresistibly causing us to believe, because he effec
tually works faith in us, — is the sum of what Mr B. here rejecteth, that he
might be sure, as before, to leave nothing of weight in Christian religion
uncondemned. But these trifles and falsities being renounced, he com
plains of the abuse of his darling, that it is called carnal reason; which
being the only interpreter of Scripture which he allows of, he cannot but
take it amiss that it should be so grossly slandered as to be called "carnal."
The Scripture, indeed, tells us of a " natural man, that cannot discern
the things which are of God, and that they are foolishness to him ; of a
carnal mind, that is enmity to God, and not like to have any reasons or
reasonings but what are carnal ; of a wisdom that is carnal, sensual, and
devilish ;s of a wisdom that God will destroy and confound;" and that such
is the best of the wisdom and reason of all unregenerate persons ; — but
why the reason of a man in such a state, with such a mind about the
things of God, should be called " carnal," Mr B. can see no reason ; and
some men, perhaps, will be apt to think that it is because all his reason is
still carnal. When a man is " renewed after the image of him that created
him" he is made "spiritual, light in the Lord," every thought and imagina
tion that sets up itself in his heart in opposition to God being led captive
to the obedience of the gospel. We acknowledge a sanctified reason in
such an one of that use in the dijudication of the things of God as shall
afterward be declared.

^ Spiritual desertions are nextly decried. Some poor souls would thank
him to make good this discovery. They find mention in the Scripture of
"God's hiding his face, withdrawing himself, forsaking, though but for a
moment," and of them that on this account " walk in darkness and see no
light, that seek him and find him not, but are filled with troubles, ter
rors, arrows from him," etc.* And this, in some measure, they find to be
the condition of their own souls. They have not the life, light, power,
joy, . consolation, sense of God's love, as formerly ; and therefore they
think there are spiritual desertions, and that in respect of their souls these
dispensations of God are signally and significantly so termed ; and they fear
that those who deny all desertions never had any enjoyments from or of God.

TO HIS CATECHISH EXAMINED. 81

Of spiritual incomes there is the same reason. It is not the phrase of
speech, but the thing itself, we contend about. That God who is the
Father of mercy and God of all consolation gives mercy, grace, joy, peace,
consolation, as to whom, so in what manner or in what degree he pleaseth.
The receiving of these from God is by some (and that, perhaps, not in
aptly) termed "spiritual incomes," with regard to God's gracious distribu
tions of his kindness, love, good-will, and the receiving of them. So that
it be acknowledged that we do receive grace, mercy, joy, consolation, and
peace from God, variously as he pleaseth, we shall not much labour about
the significancy of that or any other expression of the like kind. The
Scriptures mentioning the "goings forth of God," Micah v. 2, leave no just
cause to Mr B. of condemning them who sometimes call any of his works
or dispensations his outgoings.

His rehearsal of all these particular instances, in doctrines that are found
neither name nor thing in Scripture, Mr B. closeth with an " etc.;" which
might be interpreted to oomprise as many more, but that there remain not
as many more important heads in Christian religion. The nature of God
being abased, the deity and grace of Christ denied, the sin of our natures
and their renovation by grace in Christ rejected, Mr B.'s remaining re
ligion will be found scarce worth the inquiry after by those whom he
undertakes to instruct, there being scarcely any thing left by him from
whence we are peculiarly denominated Christians, nor any thing that
should support the weight of a sinful soul which approacheth to God for
life and salvation.

To prevent the entertainment of such doctrines as these, Mr B. com
mends the advice of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 13, " Hold fast the form of sound
words," etc. ; than which we know none more wholesome nor more useful
for the safeguarding and defence of those holy and heavenly principles
of our religion which Mr B. rejects and tramples on. JSTor are we at all
concerned in his following discourse of leaving Scripture terms, and using
phrases and expressions coined by men ; for if we use any word or phrase
in the things of God and his worship, and cannot make good the thing
signified thereby to be founded on and found in the Scriptures, we will
instantly renounce it. But if indeed the words and expressions %used by
any of the ancients for the explication and confirmation of the faith of
the gospel, especially of the doctrine concerning the person of Christ, in
the vindication of it from the heretics which in sundry ages bestirred
themselves (as Mr B. now doth) in opposition thereunto, be found con
sonant to Scripture, and to signify nothing but what is written therein
with the beams of the sun, perhaps we see more cause to retain them, from
the opposition here made to them by Mr B., than formerly we did, con
sidering that his opposition to words and phrases is not for their own
sake, but of the things intended by them.

The similitude of " the ship that lost its first matter and substance by
the addition of new pieces, in way of supplement to the old decays," having
been used by some of our divines to illustrate the Boman apostasy and
traditional additionals to the doctrines of the gospel, will not stand Mr B.
in the least stead, unless he be able to prove that we have lost, in the re
ligion we profess, any one material part of what it was when given over to
the churches by Christ and his apostles, or have added any one particular
to what they have provided and furnished us withal in the Scriptures ;
which until he hath done, by these and the like insinuations he doth but
beg the thing in question ; which, being a matter of so great consequence
and importance as it is, will scarce be granted him on any such terms. I

VOL. XII. 6

&2 THE PREFACE OF MR BIDDLE

doubt not but it will appear to every person whatsoever, in the process of
this business, who hath his senses any thing exercised in the word to dis
cern between good and evil, and whose eyes the god of this world hath
not blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel of God should not shine
into their hearts, that Mr B., as wise as he deems and reports himself
to be, is indeed, like the foolish woman that pulls down her house with
both her hands, labouring to destroy the house of God with all his
strength, pretending that this and that part of it did not originally be
long thereto (or like Ajax, in his madness, who killed sheep, and supposed
they had been his enemies1), upon the account of that enmity which he
finds in his own mind unto them.

The close of Mr B.'s preface contains an exhortation to the study of the
word, with an account of the success he himself hath obtained in the
search thereof, both in the detection of errors and the discovery of sundry
truths. Some things I shall remark upon that discourse, and shut up these
considerations of his preface : —

For his own success, he tells us " That being otherwise of no great
abilities, yet searching the Scriptures impartially, he hath detected many
errors, and hath presented the reader with a body of religion from the
Scriptures ; which whoso shall well ruminate and digest will be enabled," etc.
As for Mr B.'s abilities, I have not any thing to do to call them into
question: whether small or great, he will one day find that he hath
scarce used them to the end for which he is intrusted with them ; and
when the Lord of his talents shall call for an account, it will scarce be
comfortable to him that he hath engaged them so much to his dishonour
as it will undoubtedly appear he hath done. I have heard, by those of
Mr B.'s time and acquaintance in the university, that what ability he had
then obtained, were it more or less, he still delighted to be exercising of
it in opposition to received truths in philosophy ; and whether an itching
desire of novelty, and of emerging thereby, lie not at the bottom of the
course he hath since steered, he may do well to examine himself.

What errors he hath detected (though but pretended such, which honour
in the next place he assumes to himself) I know not. The error of the
deity of Christ was detected in the apostles' days by Ebion, Cerinthus, and
others,8 — not long after by Paulus Samosatenus, by Photinus, by Arius,
and others;8 the error of the purity, simplicity, and spirituality of the
essence of God, by Audseus and the Anthropomorphites ; the error of the
deity of the Holy Ghost was long since detected by Macedonius and his
companions; the error of original sin, or the corruption of our nature, by
Pelagius; the error of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, by Abelarclus;
all of them, by Socinus, Smalcius, Crellius, etc. What new discoveries
Mr B. hath made I know not, nor is there any thing that he presents us
with, in his whole body of religion, as stated in his questions, but what he
Jiath found prepared, digested, and modelled to his hand by his masters,
the Socinians, unless it be some few gross notions about the Deity ; nor is
so much as the language which here he useth of himself and his discoveries
his own, but borrowed of Socinus, Ep. ad Squarcialupum.

We have not, then, the least reason in the world to suppose that Mr B. was
led into these glorious discoveries by reading of the Scriptures, much less
by "impartial reading of them; " but that they are all the fruits of a deluded

1 Sophoc. in Ajace, /uu-nyt^, 1. 25, 43, etc.

3 Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. xxi. ; Iran, ad Haer. lib. i. cap. xxvi. : Epiphan. User. L
torn. ii. lib. i. ; Ruf. cap. xxvii.

» Euseb. lib. vii. cap. xxii.-xxiv.; August. Hser. xliv. ; Epiphan. Haer. i. lib. ii. ;
Socrat. Hist. lib. 11. cap. xxiv., etc.

TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED. 83

heart, given up righteously of God to believe a lie, for the neglect of his
word and contempt of reliance upon his Spirit and grace for a right un
derstanding thereof, by the cunning sleights of the forementioned persons,
in some of whose writings Satan lies in wait to deceive. And for the
" body of religion" which he hath collected, which lies not in the answers,
which are set down in the words of the Scripture, but in the interpreta
tions and conclusions couched in his questions, I may safely say it is one
of the most corrupt and abominable that ever issued from the endeavours
of one who called himself a Christian ; for a proof of which assertion I
refer the reader to the ensuing considerations of it. So that whatever pro
mises of success Mr B. is pleased to make unto him who shall ruminate
and digest in his mind this body of his composure (it being, indeed, stark
poison, that will never be digested, but will fill and swell the heart with
pride and venom until it utterly destroy the whole person), it may justly be
feared that he hath given too great an advantage to a sort of men in the
world, not behind Mr B. for abilities and reason (the only guide allowed
by him in affairs of this nature), to decry the use and reading of the Scrip
ture, which they see unstable and unlearned men fearfully to wrest to their
own destruction. But let God be true, and all men liars. Let the gospel
run and prosper ; and if it be hid to any, it is to them whom the god of
this world hath blinded, that the glorious light thereof should not shine
into their hearts.

What may farther be drawn forth of the same kind with what is in
these Catechisms delivered, with an imposition of it upon the Scripture, as
though any occasion were thence administered thereunto, I know not, buc
yet do suppose that Satan himself is scarce able to furnish the thoughts
of men with many more abominations of the like length and breadth with
those here endeavoured to be imposed on simple, unstable souls, unless he
should engage them into downright atheism and professed contempt of
God.

Of what tendency these doctrines of Mr B. are unto godliness, which
he next mentioneth, will in its proper place fall under consideration.
It is true, the gospel is a " doctrine according to godliness," and aims at
the promotion of it in the hearts and lives of men, in order to the ex
altation of the glory of God; and hence it is that so soon as any poor
deluded soul falls into the snare of Satan, and is taken captive under
the power of any error whatever, the first sleight he puts in practice
• for the promotion of it is to declaim about its excellency and useful
ness for the furtherance of godliness, though himself in the meantime be
under the power of darkness, and knows not in the least what belongs to
the godliness which he professeth to promote. As to what Mr B. here
draws forth to that purpose, I shall be bold to tell him that to the accom
plishment of a godliness amongst men (since the fall of Adam) that hath
not its rise and foundation in the effectual, powerful changing of the
whole man from death to life, darkness to light, etc., in the washing off the
pollutions of nature by the blood of Christ ; that is not wrought in us and
carried on by the efficacy of the Spirit of grace, taking away the heart of
stone and giving a new heart circumcised to fear the Lord ; that is not
purchased and procured for us by the oblation and intercession of the
Lord Jesus; a godliness that is not promoted by the consideration of the
viciousness and corruption of our hearts by nature, and their alienation
from God, and that doth not in a good part of it consist in the mortifying,
killing, slaying of the sin of nature that dwelleth in us, and in an opposition
to all the actings and workings of it; a godliness that is performed by

81 PEEFACE OF MR BIDDLE TO HIS CATECHISM EXAMINED.

our own strength in yielding obedience to the precepts of the -word, that by
that obedience we may be justified before God and for it accepted, etc., — -
there is not one tittle, letter, nor iota, in the whole book of God tending.

Mr B. closeth his preface with a commendation of the Scriptures, their
excellency and divinity, with the eminent success that they shall find who
yield obedience to them, in that they shall be, " even in this life, equal
unto ano-els." His expressions, at first view, seem to separate him from his
companions in his body of divinity, which he pretends to collect from the
Scriptures, whose low thoughts and bold expressions concerning the con
tradictions in them shall afterward be pointed unto ; but 1 fear " latet anguis
in herba:" and in this kiss of the Scriptures, with "hail" unto them, there is
vile treachery intended, and the betraying of them into the hands of men,
to be dealt withal at their pleasure. I desire not to entertain evil surmises
of any (what just occasion soever be given on any other account) concern
ing things that have not their evidence and conviction in themselves. The
bleating of that expression, " The Scriptures are the exactest rule of a holy
life," evidently allowing other rules of a holy life, though they be the ex
actest, and admitting other things or books into a copartnership with them
in that their use and service, though the pre-eminence be given to them,
sounds as much to their dishonour as any thing spoken of them by any
who ever owned them to have proceeded from God. It is the glory of
the Scriptures, not only to be the rule, but the only one, of walking with
God. If you take any others into comparison with it, and allow them in
the trial to be rules indeed, though not so exact as the Scripture, you do
no less cast down the Scripture from its excellency than if you denied it
to be any rule at all. It will not lie as one of the many, though you say
never so often that it is the best. What issues there will be of the en
deavour to give reason the absolute sovereignty in judging of rules of
holiness, allowing others, but preferring the Scripture, and therein, with
out other assistance, determining of all the contents of it, in order to its
utmost end, God in due time will manifest. We confess (to close with
Mr B.) that true obedience to the Scriptures makes men, even in this life,
equal in some sense unto angels ; not upon the account of their perform
ance of that obedience merely, as though there could be an equality be
tween the obedience yielded by us whilst we are yet sinners, and continue
so (for " if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves"), and the exact
obedience of them who never sinned, but abide in doing the will of God :
but the principal and main work of God required in them, and which is
the root of all other obedience whatever, being to " believe on him whom
he hath -sent," to " as many as so believe on him and so receive him power
is given to become the sons of God ;" who being so adopted into the great
family of heaven and earth, which is called after God's name, and in
vested with all the privileges thereof, having fellowship with the Father
and the Son, they are in that regard, even in this life, equal to angels.

Having thus, as briefly as I could, washed off the paint that was put
upon the porch of Mr B.'s fabric, and discovered it to be a composure of
rotten posts and dead men's bones, — whose pargeting being removed, their
abomination lies naked to all, — I shall enter the building or heap itself, to
consider what entertainment he hath provided therein for those whom, in
the entrance, he doth so subtilely and earnestly invite to turn in and par
take of his provisions.

VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

CHAPTER I.

Mr Biddle's first chapter examined — Qf the Scriptures.

MR BIDDLE having imposed upon himself the task of insinuating
his abominations by applying the express words of Scripture in way
of answer to his captious and sophistical queries, was much straitened
in the very entrance, in that he could not find any text or tittle in
them that is capable of being wrested to give the least colour to
those imperfections which the residue of men with whom he is, in
the whole system of his doctrine, in compliance and communion, do
charge them withal: as, that there are contradictions in them,
though in things of less importance;1 that many things are or may
be changed and altered in them; that some of the books of the Old
Testament are lost; and that those that remain are not of any ne
cessity to Christians, although they may be read with profit. Their
subjecting them, also, and all their assertions, to the last judgment
of reason, is of the same nature with the other. But it not being
my purpose to pursue his opinions through all the secret windings
and turnings of them, so [as] to drive them to their proper issue,
but only to discover the sophistry and falseness of those insinuations
which grossly and palpably overthrow the foundations of Christi
anity, I shall not force him to speak to any thing beyond what he
hath expressly delivered himself unto.

This first chapter, then, concerning the Scriptures, both in the
Greater and Less Catechisms, without farther trouble I shall pass over,
seeing that the stating of the questions and answers in them may be
sound, and according to the common, faith of the saints, in those
who partake not with Mr B/s companions in their low thoughts
of them, which here he doth not profess; only, I dare not join with
him in his last assertion, that such and such passages are the most

1 Socin. de Author. Sac. Scrip, cap. i. Racov. anno 1611, p. 13 ; Socin. Lect. Sacr.
p. 18 ; Episcop. Disput. de Author. Scrip, thes. 3 ; Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. v.
p. 375. " Socinus autem videtur rectius de SS. opinari." — Ep. ad Eadec. 3, p. 140. " Ego
quidem sentio, nihil in Scriptis, quse communiter ab iis, qui Christian! sunt dicti, rc-
cepta, et pro divinis habita sunt, constanter legi, quod non sit verissimum : hocque ad
divinam providentiam pertinere prorsus arbitror, ut ejusmodi scripta, nunquam depra-
ventur aut corrumpantur, neque ex to to, neque ex parte."

86 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

affectionate in the look of God, seeing we know but in part, and
are not enabled nor warranted to make such peremptory determina
tions concerning the several passages of Scripture, set in comparison
and competition for affectionateness by ourselves.

CHAPTER II.

Of the nature of God.

His second chapter, which is concerning God, his essence, nature,
and properties, is second to none in his whole book for blasphemies
and reproaches of God and his word.

The description of God. which he labours to insinuate is, that he
is " one person, of a visible shape and similitude, finite, limited to
a certain place, mutable, comprehensible, and obnoxious to turbulent
passions, not knowing the things that are future and which shall be
done by the sons of men ; whom none can love with all his heart, if
he believe him to be ' one in three distinct persons/"

That this is punctually the apprehension and notion concerning
God and his being which he labours to beget, by his suiting Scrip
ture expressions to the blasphemous insinuations of his questions,
will appear in the consideration of both questions and answers, as
they lie in the second chapter of the Greater Catechism.

His first question is, " How many Gods of Christians are there V*
and his answer is, " One God/' Eph. iv. 6 ; whereunto he subjoins
secondly, " Who is this one God ?" and answers, " The Father, of
whom are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6.

That the intendment of the connection of these queries, and the
suiting of words of Scripture to them, is to insinuate some thoughts
against the doctrine of the Trinity, is not questionable, especially
being the work of him that makes it his business to oppose it and
laugh it to scorn. With what success this attempt is managed, a
little consideration of what is offered will evince. It is true, Paul
says, " To us there is one God," treating of the vanity and nothing
ness of the idols of the heathen, whom God hath threatened to
deprive of all worship and to starve out of the world. The ques
tion as here proposed, " How many Gods of Christians are there ?"
having no such occasion administered unto it as that expression of
Paul, being no parcel of such a discourse as he insists upon, sounds
pleasantly towards the allowance of many gods, though Christians
have but one. Neither is Mr B. so averse to polytheism as not to
give occasion, on other accounts, to this supposal. Jesus Christ he
allows to be a god. All his companions, in the undertaking against

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 87

his truly eternal divine nature, still affirm him to be " Homo Deifi-
catus" and " Deus Factus,"1 and plead " pro vera deitate Jesu
Christi," denying yet, with him, that by nature he is God, of the
same essence with the Father ; so, indeed, grossly and palpably fall
ing into and closing with that abomination which they pretend
above all men to avoid, in their opposition to the thrice holy and
blessed Trinity. Of those monstrous figments in Christian religion
which on this occasion they have introduced, of making a man to be
an eternal God, of worshipping a mere creature with the worship
due only to the infinitely blessed God, we shall speak afterward.

We confess that to us there is one God, but one God, and let all
others be accursed. " The gods that have not made the heavens and
the earth," let them be destroyed, according to the word of the Lord,
" from under these heavens/' Jer. x. 11. Yet we say, moreover, that
"there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost ; and these three are one," 1 John v. 7. And in that
very place whence Mr B. cuts off his first answer, as it is asserted that
there is " one God," so " one Lord" and " one Spirit," the fountain,
of all spiritual distributions, are mentioned; which whether they are
not also that one God, we shall have farther occasion to consider.

To the next query concerning this one God, who he is, the words
are, " The Father, from whom are all things ;" in themselves most
true. The Father is the one God whom we worship in spirit and in
truth ; and yet the Son also is " our Lord and our God," John xx.
28, even " God over all, blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. The Spirit
also is the God "which worketh all in all," 1 Cor. xii. 6, 11. And in
the name of that one God, who is the "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,"
are we baptized, whom we serve, who to us is the one God over all,
Matt, xxviii. 19. Neither is that assertion of the Father's being the
one and only true God any more prejudicial to the Son's being so
also, than that testimony given to the everlasting deity of the Son
is to that of the Father, notwithstanding that to us there is but one
God. The intendment of our author in these questions is to answer
what he found in the great exemplar of his Catechism, the Racovian,
two of whose questions are comprehensive of all that is here delivered
and intended by Mr B.a But of these things more afterward.

1 Smalc. de Divinit. Jes. Christ, edit. Eacov. anno 1608, per Jacob. Sienienskia ;
Volkel. de Vera Eelig. lib. v. cap. x. pp. 425, 468, et antea, p. 206 ; Cat. Eac. cap. i.,
de Cognit. Christ, quaest. 3 ; Confession de Foi, des Chrestiens, qui croyent en un seul
Dieu le Pere, etc., pp. 18, 19 ; Jonas Schlichtingius, ad Meisner. artic. de Filio Dei, p.
387 ; Socin. Resp. ad Weik. p. 8 ; et passim reliqui.

2 " Exposuisti quae cognitu ad salutem de essentia Dei sunt prorsus necessaria,
expone quse ad earn rem vehementer utilia esse censeas. R. Id quidem est ut cognos-
camus in essentia Dei unam tantum personam esse. Demonstra hoc ipsum. R. Hoc
sane vel hinc patere potest, quod essentia Dei sit una numero; quapropter plures
numero personse, in ea esse nullo pacto possunt. Qusenam est haec una persona divina ?
R. Eet ille Deusunus, Domini nostri Jesu Christ! Pater, 1 Cor.viii. 6." — Cat. Eac. cap. i.f
de Cognit. Dei, de Dei Essentia.

88 VISDICLE EVANGELICAL

His next inquiry is after the nature of this one God, which he
answers with that of our Saviour in John iv. 24, " God is a spirit."
In this he is somewhat more modest, though not so wary as his great
master, Faustus Socinus, and his disciple (as to his notions about the
nature of God) Vorstius. His acknowledgment of God to be a spirit
frees him from sharing in impudence in this particular with his
master, who will not allow any such thing to be asserted in these
words of our Saviour. His words are (Fragment. Disput. de Adorat.
Christi cum Christiano Franken, p. 60), " Non est fortasse eorum
verborum ea sententia, quam plerique omnes arbitrantur : Deum
scilicet esse spiritum, neque enim subaudiendum esse dicit aliquis
verbum sffri} quasi vox irvtvpat,, recto casu accipienda sit, sed awb
xoivou repetendum verbum fyrs?, quod paulo ante prsecessit, et irvivpu
quarto casu accipiendum, ita ut sententia sit, Deum quarere et postu-
lare spiritum." Vorstius also follows him, Not. ad Disput. 3, p. 200.
Because the verb substantive " is" is not in the original expressed
(than the omission whereof nothing being more frequent, though I
have heard of one who, from the like omission, 2 Cor. v. 1 7, thought
to have proved Christ to be the "new creature" there intended), con
trary to the context and coherence of the words, design of the argu
ment in hand insisted on by our Saviour (as he was a bold man),
and emphaticalness of significancy in the expression as it lies, he
will needs thrust in the word " seeketh," and render the intention
of Christ to be, that God seeks a spirit, that is, the spirit of men, to
worship him. Herein, I say, is Mr B. more modest than his master
(as, it seems, following Crellius,1 who in the exposition of that place
of Scripture is of another mind), though in craft and foresight he be
outgone by him; for if God be a spirit indeed, one of a pure spiri
tual essence and substance, the image, shape, and similitude, which
he afterwards ascribes to him, his corporeal posture, which he asserts
(ques. 4), will scarcely be found suitable unto him. It is incumbent
on some kind of men to be very wary in what they say, and mindful
of what they have said ; falsehood hath no consistency in itself, no
more than with the truth. Smalcius in the Racovian Catechism is
utterly silent as to this question and answer. But the consideration
of this also will in its due place succeed.

To his fourth query, about a farther description of God by some
of his attributes, I shall not need to subjoin any thing in way of
animadversion ; for however the texts he cites come short of deli
vering that of God which the import of the question to which they

1 " Significat enim Christus id, quod ratio ipsa dictat, Deum, cum spiritus sit, non.
nisi spiritualibus revera delectari." — Crell. de Deo : seu de Vera Relig. lib. i, cap. xv.
p. 108. "Spiritus estDeus : animadverterunt ibi omnespropeS. literarum interpretes,
Dei nomen, quod articulo est in Grseco notatum, subject! locum tenere : vocem, spiritus,
quse articulo caret, prsedicati : et spiritualem significare substantiam. Ita perinde est
ac si dictum fuisset, Deus est spiritus, seu spiritualis substantial' — Idem ibid, p. 107.

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 89

are annexed doth require, yet being not wrested to give countenance
to any perverse apprehension of his nature, I shall not need to insist
upon the consideration of them.

Ques. 5, he falls closely to his work, in these words, "Is not God,
according to the current of the Scriptures, in a certain place, namely,
in heaven?" whereunto he answers by many places of Scripture
that make mention of God in heaven.

That we may not mistake his mind and intention in this query,
some light may be taken from some other passages in his book. In
the preface he tells you "That God hath a similitude and shape" (of
which afterward), "and hath his place in the heavens" (that " God is
in no certain place," he reckons amongst those errors he opposes, in
the same preface; of the same kind he asserteth the belief to be
of God's "being infinite and incomprehensible);" and, Cat. Less. p. 6,
"That God glisteneth with glory, and is resident in a certain place
of the heavens, so that one may distinguish between his right
and left hand by bodily sight." This is the doctrine of the man
with whom we have to do concerning the presence of God. " He
is," saith he, " in heaven, as in a certain place." That which is in
a certain place is finite and limited, as, from the nature of a place
and the manner of any thing's being in a place, shall be instantly
evinced. God, then, is finite and limited ; be it so (that he is infi
nite and incomprehensible is yet a Scripture expi'ession) : yea, he is
so limited as not to be extended to the whole compass and limit of
the heavens, but he is in a certain place of the heavens, yea, so cir
cumscribed as that a man may see from his right hand to his left ; —
wherein Mr B. comes short of Mohammed, who affirms that when
he was taken into heaven to the sight of God, he found three days'
journey between his eye-brows ; which if so, it will be somewhat
hard for any one to see from his right hand to his left, being sup
posed at an answerable distance to that of his eye-brows. Let us
see, then, on what testimony, by what authority, Mr B. doth here
limit the Almighty and confine him to a certain place, shutting
up his essence and being in some certain part of the heavens, cutting
him thereby short, as we shall see in the issue, in all those eternal
perfections whereby hitherto he hath been known to the sons of men.

The proof of that lies in the places of Scripture which, making
mention of God, say, " he is in heaven," and that " he looketh down
from heaven," etc. ; of which, out of some concordance, some twenty
or thirty are by him repeated. Not to make long work of a short
business, the Scriptures say, " God is in heaven." Who ever
denied it? But do the Scriptures say he is nowhere else? Do
the Scriptures say he is confined to heaven, so that he is so
there as not to be in all other places ? If Mr B. thinks this any
argument, " God is in heaven, therefore his essence is not infinite

90 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

and immense, therefore he is not everywhere/' we are not of his
mind. He tells you, in his preface, that he "asserts nothing himself/'
I presume his reason was, lest any should call upon him for a proof
of his assertions. What he intends to insinuate, and what concep
tions of God he labours to ensnare the minds of unlearned and
unstable souls withal, in this question under consideration, hath
been, from the evidence of his intendment therein, and the concurrent
testimony of other expressions of his to the same purpose, demon
strated. To propose any thing directly in way of proof of the truth
of that which he labours insensibly to draw the minds of men unto,
he was doubtless conscious to himself of so much disability for its
performance as to waive that kind of procedure ; and therefore
his whole endeavour is, having rilled, animated, and spirited the
understandings of men with the notion couched in his question, to
cast in some Scripture expressions, that, as they lie, may seem fitted
to the fixing of the notion before begotten in them. As to any
attempt of direct proof of what he would have confirmed, the man
of reason is utterly silent.

None of those texts of Scripture where mention is made of
God's being in heaven are, in the coherence and dependence of
speech wherein they lie, suited or intended at all to give answer to
this question, or any like it, concerning the presence of God or his
actual existence in any place, but only in respect of some dispensa
tions of God and works of his, whose fountain and original he would
have us to consider in himself, and to come forth from him there
where in an eminent manner he manifests his glory. God is, I
say, in none of the places by him urged said to be in heaven in
respect of his essence or being, nor is it the intention of the Holy
Ghost in any of them to declare the manner of God's essential
presence and existence in reference to all or any place ; but only by
the way of eminency, in respect of manifestations of himself and
operations from his glorious presence, doth he so speak of him. And,
indeed, in those expressions, heaven doth not so much signify a place
as a thing, or at least a place in reference to the things there done,
or the peculiar manifestations of the glory of God there ; so that if
these places should be made use of as to the proof of the figment in
sinuated, the argument from them would be a non causa pro causa.
The reason why God is said to be in heaven is, not because his es
sence is included in a certain place so called, but because of the
more eminent manifestations of his glory there, and the regard which
he requires to be had of him manifesting his glory as the first cause
and author of all the works which outwardly are of him.
• 3. God is said to be in heaven in an especial manner, because he
hath assigned that as the place of the saints' expectation of that
enjoyment and eternal frvition of himself which he hath promised

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 91

to bless them withal ; but for the limiting of his essence to a certain
place in heaven, the Scriptures, as we shall see, know nothing, yea,
expressly and positively affirm the contrary.

Let us all, then, supply our catechumens, in the room of Mr B/s,
with this question, expressly leading to the things inquired after : —

What says the Scripture concerning the essence and presence
of God ? is it confined and limited to a certain place, or is he in
finitely and equally present everywhere ?

Ans. " The LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and
in earth beneath," Joshua ii. 11. "But will God indeed dwell
on the earth ? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain thee ; how much less this house that I have builded ? "
1 Kings viii. 27. "Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither
shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou
art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there," etc.,
Ps. cxxxix. 7-1 0. " The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool," Isa. Ixvi. 1, Acts vii. 47, 48. "Am I a God at hand,
saith the LORD, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in
secret places that I shall not see him ? saith the LORD. Do not
I fill heaven and earth ? saith the LORD," Jer. xxiii. 23, 24.

It is of the ubiquity and omnipresence of God that these places
expressly treat ; and whereas it was manifested before that the ex
pression of God being in heaven doth not at all speak to the abomi
nation which Mr B. would insinuate thereby, the naked rehearsal
of those testimonies, so directly asserting and ascribing to the
Almighty an infinite, unlimited presence, and that in direct opposi
tion to the gross apprehension of his being confined to a certain
place in heaven, is abundantly sufficient to deliver the thoughts and
minds of men from any entanglements that Mr B/s questions and
answers (for though it be the word of the Scripture he insists upon,
yet male dum recitas incipit esse tuuni) might lead them into.
On that account no more need be added ; but yet this occasion being
administered, that truth itself, concerning the omnipresence or
ubiquity of God, may be farther cleared and confirmed.

Through the prejudices and ignorance of men, it is inquired
whether God be so present in any certain place as not to be also
equally elsewhere, everywhere?

Place has been commonly defined to be " superficies corporis
ambientis." Because of sundry inextricable difficulties and the impos
sibility of suiting it to every place, this definition is now generally
decried. That now commonly received is more natural, suited to
the natures of things, and obvious to the understanding. A place
is " spatium corporis susceptivum," — any space wherein a body may
be received and contained. The first consideration of it is as to its
fitness and aptness so to receive any body : so it is in the imagina-

92 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

tion only. The second, as to its actual existence, being filled with
that body which it is apt to receive : so may we imagine innumer
able spaces in heaven which are apt and able to receive the bodies
of the saints, and which actually shall be filled with them when
they shall be translated thereunto by the power of God.

Presence in a place is the actual existence of a person in his place,
or, as logicians speak, in his ubi, that is, answering the inquiry after
him where he is. Though all bodies are in certain places, yet per
sons only are said to be present in them. Other things have not pro
perly a presence to be ascribed to them ; they are in their proper
places, but we do not say they are present in or to their placea

This being the general description of a place and the presence of
any therein, it is evident that properly it cannot be spoken at all of
God that he is in one place or other, for he is not a body that
should fill up the space of its receipt, nor yet in all places, taking
the word properly, for so one essence can be but in one place ; and
if the word should properly be ascribed to God in any sense, it would
deprive him of all his infinite perfections.

It is farther said that there be three ways of the presence of any
in reference to a place or places. Some are so in a place as to be
circumscribed therein in respect of their parts and dimensions, such
are their length, breadth, and depth : so doth one part of them fit one
part of the place wherein they are, and the whole the whole ; so are
all solid bodies in a place ; so is a man, his whole body in his whole
place, his head in one part of it, his arms in another. Some are so
conceived to be in a place as that, in relation to it, it may be said of
them that they are there in it so as not to be anywhere else, though
they have not parts and dimensions filling the place wherein they
are, nor are punctually circumscribed with a local space : such is the
presence of angels and spirits to the places wherein they are, being
not infinite or immense. These are so in some certain place as not to
be at the same time, wherein they are so, without it, or elsewhere, or
in any other place. And this is proper to all finite, immaterial sub
stances, that are so in a place as not to occupy and fill up that space
wherein they are. In respect of place, God is immense, and indis-
tant to all things and places, absent from nothing, no place, contained
in none ; present to all by and in his infinite essence and being, ex
erting his power variously, in any or all places, as he pleaseth, revealing
and manifesting his glory more or less, as it seemeth good to him.

Of this omnipresence of God, two things are usually inquired after:

1. The thing itself, or the demonstration that he is so omnipresent ;

2. The manner of it, or the manifestation and declaring how he is so
present Of this latter, perhaps, sundry things have been over curi
ously and nicely by some disputed, though, upon a thorough search,
their disputes may not appear altogether useless. The schoolmen's

OF THE NATURE OF GOD. 93

distinctions of God's being in a place repletivd, immensivd, impletivd,
superexcedenter, conservative, attinctivd, manifestativd, etc., have,
some of them at least, foundation in the Scriptures and right reason.
That which seems most obnoxious to exception is their assertion of
God to be everywhere present, instar puncti; but the sense of that
and its intendment is, to express how God is not in a place, rather
than how he is. He is not in a place as quantitive bodies, that have
the dimensions attending them. Neither could his presence in
heaven, by those who shut him up there, be any otherwise conceived,
until they were relieved by the rare notions of Mr. B. concerning
the distinct places of his right hand and left. But it is not at all
about the manner of God's presence that I am occasioned to speak,
but only of the thing itself. They who say he is in heaven only
speak as to the thing, and not as to the manner of it. When we
say he is everywhere, our assertion is also to be interpreted as to
that only ; the manner of his presence being purely of a philosophi
cal consideration, his presence itself divinely revealed, and necessarily
attending his divine perfections; yea, it is an essential property of
God. The properties of God are either absolute or relative. The
absolute properties of God are such as may be considered without
the supposition of any thing else whatever, towards which their
energy and efficacy should be exerted. His relative are such as, in
their egress and exercise, respect some things in the creatures, though
they naturally and eternally reside in God. Of the first sort is God's
immensity ; it is an absolute property of his nature and being. For
God to be immense, infinite, unbounded, unlimited, is as necessary
to him as to be God ; that is, it is of his essential perfection so to
be. The ubiquity of God, or his presence to all things and persons,
is a relative property of God ; for to say that God is present in and
to all things supposes those things to be. Indeed, the ubiquity of
God is the habitude of his immensity to the creation. Supposing the
creatures, the world that is, God is by reason of his immensity in-
distant to them all ; or if more worlds be supposed (as all things
possible to the power of God without any absurdity may be sup
posed), on the same account as he is omnipresent in reference to the
present world, he would be so to them and all that is in them.

Of that which we affirm in this matter this is the sum: God,
who in his own being and essence is infinite and immense, is, by
reason thereof, present in and to the whole creation equally, — not by
a diffusion of his substance, or mixture with other things, heaven or
earth, in or upon them, but by an inconceivable indistancy of essence
to all things, — though he exert his power and manifest his glory in
one place more than another ; as in heaven, in Zion, at the ark, etc.

That this is the doctrine of the Scriptures in the places before
mentioned needs no great pains to evince. In that, 1 Kings viii.

94 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

27, the design of Solomon in the words gives light to the substance
of what he asserted. He had newly, with labour, cost, charge, and
wisdom, none of them to be paralleled in the world, built a temple
for the worship of God. The house being large and exceedingly
glorious, the apprehensions of all the nations round about (that
looked on, and considered the work he had in hand) concerning the
nature and being of God being gross, carnal, and superstitious, them
selves answerably worshipping those who by nature were not God,
and his own people of Israel exceedingly prone to the same abomi
nation, lest any should suppose that he had thoughts of including
the essence of God in the house that he had built, he clears himself
in this confession of his faith from all such imaginations, affirming
that though indeed God would dwell on the earth,-yet he was so far
from being limited unto or circumscribed in the house that he had
built, that " the heaven and the heaven of heavens," any space what
ever that could be imagined, the highest heaven, could not, " cannot
contain him;" so far is he from having a certain place in heaven
where he should reside, in distinction from other places where he is
not. "He is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath," Josh. ii. 11.
That which the temple of God was built unto, that " the heaven and
the heaven of heavens cannot contain." Now, the temple was built
to the being of God, to God as God: so Acts vii. 47, " But Solomon
built him an house ;" him, — that is, the Most High, — " who dwelleth
not," is not circumscribed, " in temples made with hands," verse 48.

That of Ps. cxxxix. 7-10 is no less evident ; the presence or face
of God is expressly affirmed to be everywhere : " Whither shall I go
from thy face ? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if I go
into hell, behold, thou art there." As God is affirmed to be in hea
ven, so everywhere else ; now that he is in heaven, in respect of his
essence and being, is not questioned.

Neither can that of the prophet Isaiah, chap. Ixvi. 1, be otherwise
understood but as an ascribing of an ubiquity to God, and a presence in
heaven and earth : " Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my foot
stool." The words are metaphorical, and in that way expressive of
the presence of a person ; and so God is present in heaven and earth.
That the earth should be his footstool, and yet himself be so incon
ceivably distant from it as the heaven is from the earth (an expres
sion chosen by himself to set out the greatest distance imaginable),
is not readily to be apprehended. " He is not far from every one of
us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being," Acts xvii.
27, 28.

The testimony which God gives to this his perfection in Jer. xxiii.
23, 24, is not to be avoided; more than what is here spoken by God
himself as to his omnipresence we cannot, we desire not to speak :
"Can any hide himself in secret places, that I shall not see him?

OF THE NATUEE OF GOD. 95

saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD."
Still where mention is made of the presence of God, there heaven
and earth (which two are comprehensive of, and usually put for
the whole creation) are mentioned : and herein he is neither to be
thought afar off nor near, being equally present everywhere, in the
hidden places as in heaven; that is, he is not distant from any thing
or place, though he take up no place, but is nigh all things, by the
infiniteness and existence of his being.

From what is also known of the nature of God, his attributes and
perfections, the truth delivered may be farther argued and confirmed ;
as,—

1. God is absolutely perfect ; whatever is of perfection is to be as
cribed to him : otherwise he could neither be absolutely self-sufficient,
all-sufficient, nor eternally blessed in himself. He is absolutely perfect,
inasmuch as no perfection is wanting to him, and comparatively above
all that we can conceive or apprehend of perfection. If, then, ubiquity
or omnipresence be a perfection, it no less necessarily belongs to God
than it does to be perfectly good and blessed. That this is a perfection
is evident from its contrary. To be limited, to be circumscribed, is
an imperfection, and argues weakness. We commonly say, we would
do such a thing in such a place could we be present unto it, and are
grieved and troubled that we cannot be so. That it should be so is an
imperfection attending the limitedness of our natures. Unless we
will ascribe the like to God, his omnipresence is to be acknowledged.
If every perfection, then, be in God (and if every perfection be not in
any, he is not God), this is not to be -denied to him.

2. Again ; if God be now "in a certain place in heaven," I ask where
he was before these heavens were made ? These heavens have not
always been. God was then where there was nothing but God, — no
heaven, no earth, no place. In what place was God when there was
no place ? When the heavens were made, did he cease this manner of
being in himself, existing in his own infinite essence, and remove into
the new place made for him ? Or is not God's removal out of his
existence in himself into a certain place a blasphemous imagination ?
" Ante omnia Deus erat solus ipse sibi, et locus, et mundus, et omnia,"
Tertul. Is this change of place and posture to be ascribed to God ?
Moreover, if God be now only in a certain place of the heavens, if he
should destroy the heavens and that place, where would he then be ?
in what place? Should he cease to be in the place wherein he is,
and begin to be in, to take up, and possess another ? And are such
apprehensions suited to the infinite perfections of God? Yea, may
we not suppose that he may create another heaven? can he not do
it? How should he be present there ? or must it stand empty? or
must he move himself thither? or make himself bigger than he was;
to fill that heaven also?

36 VINDICI.E EV2.NGELHXE.

3. The omnipresence of God is grounded on the infiniteness of his
essence. If God be infinite, he is omnipresent. Suppose him infinite,
and then suppose there is any thing besides himself, and his presence
with that thing, wherever it be, doth necessarily follow ; for if he be
so bounded as to be in his essence distant from any thing, he is not
infinite. To say God is not infinite in his essence denies him to be
infinite or unlimited in any of his perfections or properties; and there
fore, indeed, upon the matter Socinus denies God's power to be in
finite, because he will not grant his essence to be, Cat. chap. xi.
part 1. That which is absolutely infinite cannot have its residence
in that which is finite and limited, so that if the essence of God be
not immense and infinite, his power, goodness, etc., are also bounded
and limited ; so that there are, or may be, many things which in their
own natures are capable of existence, which yet God cannot do for
want of power. How suitable to the Scriptures and common notions of
mankind concerning the nature of God this is will be easily known. It
is yet thecommon faith of Christians that God is a-ygp/yf CWT-OS, xal avtipog.

4. Let reason (which the author of these Catechisms pretends to
advance and honour, as some think, above its due, and therefore can
not decline its dictates) judge of the consequences of this gross ap
prehension concerning the confinement of God to the heavens, yea, " a
certain place in the heavens," though he "glister" never so much "in
glory" there where he is. For, (1.) He must be extended as a body is,
that so he may fill the place, and have parts as we have, if he be cir
cumscribed in a certain place; which though our author thinks no ab
surdity, yet, as we shall afterward manifest, it is as bold an attempt to
make an idol of the living God as ever any of the sons of men engaged
into. (2.) Then God's greatness and ours, as to essence and substance,
differ only gradually, but are still of the same kind. God is bigger
than a man, it is true, but yet with the same kind of greatness, dif
fering from us as one man differs from another. A man is in a cer
tain place of the earth, which he fills and takes up; and God is in a
certain place of the heavens, which he fills and takes up. Only some
gradual difference there is, but how great or little that difference is,
as yet we are not taught. (3.) I desire to know of Mr B. what the
throne is made of that God sits on in the heavens, and how far the
glistering of his glory doth extend, and whether that glistering of
glory doth naturally attend his person as beams do the sun, or shining
doth fire, or can he make it more or less as he pleaseth? (4.)
Doth God fill the whole heavens, or only some part of them? If the
whole, being of such substance as is imagined, what room will there
be in heaven for any body else ? Can a lesser place hold him ? or could
he fill a greater? If not, how came the heavens [to be] so fit for him ?
Or could he not have made them of other dimensions, less or greater?
If he be only in a part of heaven, as is more than insinuated in the

OF THE NATUEE OF GOD. 97

expression that he is " in a certain place in the heavens," I ask why he
dwells in one part of the heavens rather than another?1 or whether he
ever removes or takes a journey, as Elijah speaks of Baal, 1 Kings
xviii. 27, or is eternally, as limited in, so confined unto, the certain place
wherein he is? Again ; how doth he work out those effects of almighty
power which are at so great a distance from him as the earth is from
the heavens, which cannot be effected by the intervenience of any
created power, as the resurrection of the dead, eta The power of God
doubtless follows his essence, and what this extends not to that can
not reach. But of that which might be spoken to vindicate the in
finitely glorious being of God from the reproach which his own word
is wrested to cast upon him, this that hath been spoken is somewhat
that to my present thoughts doth occur.

I suppose that Mr B. knows that in this his circumscription of God
to a certain place, he transgresses against the common consent of man
kind; if not, a few instances of several sorts may, I hope, suffice for
his conviction. I shall promiscuously propose them, as they lie at
hand or occur to my remembrance. For the Jews, Philo gives their
judgment "Hear/' saith he, "of the wise God that which is most true,
that God is in no place, for he is not contained, but containeth all.
That which is made is in a place, for it must be contained and not
contain/'8 And it is the observation of another of them, that so often
as QiP9, a place, is said of God, the exaltation of his immense and in
comparable essence (as to its manifestation) is to be understood. 3 And
the learned Buxtorf tells us that when that word is used of God, it is
by an antiphrasis, to signify that he is infinite, illocal, received in no
place, giving place to all.4 That known saying of Empedocles passed
among the heathen, "Deus est circulus, cujus centrum ubique, cir-
cumferentia nusquam ;" and of Seneca, " Turn which way thou wilt,
thou shalt see God meeting thee. Nothing is empty of him : he fills
his own work/'5 "All things are full of God," says the poet;6 and
another of them : —

" Estque Dei sedes nisi teroe, et pontus, et aer,
Est coelum, et versus superos, quid quaerimus ultra :
Jupiter est quodcunque vides, quocunque moveris." 7

Of this presence of God, I say, with and unto all things, of the in
finity of his essence, the very heathens themselves, by the light of

1 " Si spatium vacat super caput Creatoris, et si Deus ipse in loco est, erit jam locus
ille major et Deo et mundo ; nihil enim non majus est id quod capit, illo quod capitur."
— Tertul. ad Max. lib. i. cap. xv.

8 "Axouffav leetpa. TOU iviff'TUfi'tvov &tav frifn K^tthyrxTnv, on « 6»ay »v%i vew tv yap trtpii-
Xirai, aXXa irtpi'i%ii ra <ra». To §j ytvofttvov It rotrtu- vrtpii%sffl!ui yaf aura, a.X\a. oil ftfi'i^iti
d.ia.yxtt.7n. — Philo, lib. ii. Alleg. Leg.

3 Maimon. Mor. Nevoch. p. 1, cap. viii. * Buxtorf in Lexic.: verbo cnptt.

4 " Quocumque te flexeris, ibi ilium (Deum) videbis occurrentem tibi. Nihil ab illo
vacat : opus suum ipse implet." — Senec. de Benef. lib. iv. cap. viii.

• " Jovis omnia plena,'' — Virg. Eel. iii. 60. 7 Lucan, lib. iii.

VOL. XII. 7

98 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

nature (which Mr B. herein opposes), had a knowledge. Hence did
some of them term him xos/jjoffoibs votf, " a mind framing the uni
verse," and affirmed him to be infinite. " Primus omnium rerum
descriptionem et modum, mentis infinitce vi et ratione designari, et
confici voluit," says Cicero of Anaxagoras, Tull. de Nat. Deor. lib. i.1'1;
— " All things are disposed of by the virtue of one infinite mind."
And Plutarch, expressing the same thing, says he is vovg xadapof,
xal axparog l^i^iy^evos iraai, — " a pure and sincere mind, mixing
itself, and mixed" (so they expressed the presence of the infinite
mind) " with all things." So Virgil, " Jovis omnia plena," — " All
things are full of God," (for God they intended by that name, Acts
xvii. 25, 28, 29 ; and says Lactantius, " Convicti de uno Deo, cum
id negare non possunt, ipsum se colere, affirmant, verum hoc sibi
placere, ut Jupiter nominetur," lib. i. cap. ii.); which, as Servius on
the place observes, he had taken from Aratus, whose words are: —

'Ex ^10; df^taftifSa, roi ev&i <ro<r £*$pis leapt*
"Apprirav" [turriti S« S/oy •jea.fa.t filv nyuia.},
Hairai V avfyuvfui ayapal, fiirrri Ss SaZ.arffa,
Kai Xipiiif, WVTJI §f $10; xi%pvftifa travrtf,

— giving a full description, in his way, of the omnipresence and
ubiquity of God. The same Virgil, from the Platonics, tells us in
another place: —

" Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
Mens agitat molem." — Mn. vi. 726.

And much more of this kind might easily be added. The learned
know where to find more for their satisfaction; and for those that are
otherwise, the clear texts of Scripture cited before may suffice.

Of those, on the other hand, who have, no less grossly and carnally
than he of whom we speak, imagined a diffusion of the substance of
God through the whole creation, and a mixture of it with the crea
tures,1 so as to animate and enliven them in their several forms,
making God an essential part of each creature,3 or dream of an as
sumption of creatures into an unity of essence with God, I am not
now to speak

CHAPTER III.

Of the shape and bodily visible figure of God.
MR BIDDLE'S question : —

Is God in the Scripture said to have any likeness, similitude, person, shape?
The proposition which he would have to be the conclusion of the
answers to these questions is this, That, according to the doctrine of

1 Vide Beza, Ep. ad Philip Marnix.

» Vide Virg. Mn. lib. vi. 724: " Principio cselum," etc., ex Platonicis.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 99

the Scriptures, God is a person shaped like a man ; — a conclusion
so grossly absurd that it is refused as ridiculous by Tully, a heathen,
in the person of Cotta (De Nat. Deor. lib. i. 6), against Velleius the
Epicurean, the Epicureans only amongst the philosophers being so
sottish as to admit that conceit. And Mr B., charging that upon the
Scripture which hath been renounced by all the heathens who set
themselves studiously to follow the light of nature, and, by a strict
inquiry, to search out the nature and attributes of God, principally
attending to that safe rule of ascribing nothing to him that eminently
included imperfection,1 hath manifested his pretext of mere Christi
anity to be little better than a cover for downright atheism, or at
best of most vile and unworthy thoughts of the Divine Being. And
here also doth Mr B. forsake his masters.3 Some of them have had
more reverence of the Deity, and express themselves accordingly, in
express opposition to this gross figment.

According to the method I proceeded in, in consideration of the
precedent questions, shall I deal with this, and first consider briefly
the scriptures produced to make good this monstrous, horrid assertion.
The places urged and insisted on of old by the Anthropomorphites3
were such as partly ascribed a shape in general to God, partly such
as mention the parts and members of God in that shape, his eyes, his
arms, his hands, etc.; from all which they looked on him as an old
man sitting in heaven on a throne, — a conception that Mr B. is no
stranger to. The places of the first sort are here only insisted on by
Mr B., and the attribution of a " likeness, image, similitude, person,
and shape" unto God, is his warrant to conclude that he hath a
visible, corporeal image and shape like that of a man ; which is the
plain intendment of his question. Now, if the image, likeness, or
similitude, attributed to God as above, do no way, neither in the
sum of the words themselves nor by the intendment of the places
where they are used, in the least ascribe or intimate that there is
any such corporeal, visible shape in God as he would insinuate, but
are properly expressive of some other thing that properly belongs to
him, I suppose it will not be questioned but that a little matter will
prevail with a person desiring to emerge in the world by novelties,
and on that account casting off that reverence of God which the first
and most common notions of mankind would instruct him into, to

1 " Sine corpora ullo Deum vult esse, ut Graeci dicunt K<n»ftart»." — Tull. de Nat.
Deor. lib. i. 12, de Platone. " Mens soluta qusedam et libera, segregata ab omni con-
cretione mortal!." — Id., Tusc. Quaest. lib. i. 27.

3 " Ex his autem intelligitur, membra humani corporis, quse Deo in sacris literia
ascribuntur, uti et partes quaedam aliarum animantium, quales sunt alae, non nisi im-
propriS Deo tribui ; siquidem a spiritus natura prorsus abhorrent. Tribuuntur autem
Deo per metaphoram cum metonymia conjunctam. Nempe quia facultates vel actiones
Deo conveniunt, illarum similes, quse membris illis, aut insunt, aut per ea exercentur."
— Crell. de Deo, sive de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xv. p. 107.

3 Epiph. torn, i. lib. iii. Haeres. Ixx. ; Theod. , lib. iv. cap. x.

100 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

make bold with God and the Scripture for his own ends and pur
poses.

1. I say then, first, in general, if the Scripture may be allowed to
expound itself, it gives us a fair and clear account of its own intend-
ment in mentioning the image and shape of God, which man was
created in, and owns it to be his righteousness and holiness ; in a
state whereof, agreeable to the condition of such a creature, man be
ing created is said to be created in the image and likeness of God, —
in a kind of resemblance unto that holiness and righteousness which
are in him, Eph. iv. 23, 24, etc. What can hence be concluded for a
corporeal image or shape to be ascribed unto God is too easily dis
cernible. From a likeness in some virtue or property to conclude
to a likeness in a bodily shape, may well befit a man that cares not
what he says, so he may speak to the derogation of the glory of God.

2. For the particular places by Mr B. insisted on, and the words
used in them, which he lays the stress of this proposition upon : the
first two words are J"1^ and o?X-} both of which are used in Gen. i. 26.
The word rno"! is used Gen. v. 1, and opt, Gen. ix. 6 ; but neither of
these words doth, in its genuine signification, imply any corporeity or
figure. The most learned of all the rabbins, and most critically skilful
in their language, hath observed and proved that the proper Hebrew
word for that kind of outward form or similitude is ">Nn j and if these
be ever so used, it is in a metaphorical and borrowed sense, or at least
there is an amphiboly in the words, the Scripture sometimes using
them in such subjects where this gross, corporeal sense cannot pos
sibly be admitted: vnrrmn niBl.3, — " Like the poison of a serpent,"
Ps. Iviii. 4. There is, indeed, some imaginable, or rather rational,
resemblance in the properties there mentioned, but no corporeal
similitude. Vide Ezek. i. 28, and xxiii. 14 (to which may be added
many more places), where if ^^ shall be interpreted of a bodily
similitude, it will afford no tolerable sense. The same likewise may
be said of o?$. It is used in the Hebrew for the essential form rather
than the figure or shape ; and being spoken of men, signifies rather
their souls than bodies. So it is used, Ps. Ixxiii. 20 ; which is better
translated, " Thou shalt despise their soul," than their " image."
So where it. is said, Ps. xxxix. 6, " Every man walketh in a vain
show" (the same word again), however it ought to be interpreted,
it cannot be understood of a corporeal similitude. So that these testi
monies are not at all to his purpose. What, indeed, is the image of
God, or that likeness to him wherein man was made, I have partly
mentioned already, and shall farther manifest, chap, vl ; and if this
be not a bodily shape, it will be confessed that nothing can here be
concluded for the attribution of a shape to God ; and hereof an ac
count will be given in its proper place.

The sum of Mr B/s reasoning from these places is: " God, in the

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 101

creation of the lower world and the inhabitancy thereof, making
man, enduing him with a mind and soul capable of knowing him,
serving him, yielding him voluntary and rational obedience ; creating
him in a condition of holiness and righteousness, in a resemblance
to those blessed perfections in himself, requiring still of him to be
holy as he is holy, to continue and abide in that likeness of his; giv
ing him in that estate dominion over the rest of his works here
below, — is said to create him in his own image and likeness, he being
the sovereign lord over all his creatures, infinitely wise, knowing,
just, and holy: therefore he hath a bodily shape and image, and is
therein like unto a man." " Quod erat demonstrandum/'

His next quotation is from Num. xii. 7, 8, where it is said of
Moses that he shall behold the "similitude of the LORD." The word
is ruiDJji j which, as it is sometimes taken for a corporeal similitude,
so it is at other times for that idea whereby things are intellectually
represented. In the former sense is it frequently denied of God ;
as Deut. iv. 15, " Ye saw no manner of similitude," etc. But it is
frequently taken, in the other sense, for that object, or rather impres
sion, whereby our intellectual apprehension is made; as in Job iv. 16,
" An image was before mine eyes," namely, in his dream ; which is
not any corporeal shape, but that idea or objective representation
whereby the mind of man understands its object, — that which is in
the schools commonly called phantasm, or else an intellectual spe
cies, about the notion of which it is here improper to contend. It is
manifest that, in the place here alleged, it is put to signify the clear
manifestation of God's presence to Moses, with some such glorious
appearance thereof as he was pleased to represent unto him; there
fore, doubtless, God hath a bodily shape.

His next quotation is taken from James iii. 9, " Made after the
similitude of God," — Tw$, xad' o^oiuatv Qtou ytywdras. Certainly Mr
B. cannot be so ignorant as to think the word o/toluaii to include in
its signification a corporeal similitude. The word is of as large an
extent as "similitude" in Latin, arid takes in as well those abstracted
analogies which the understanding of man finds out, in comparing
several objects together, as those other outward conformities of figure
and shape which are the objects of our carnal eyes. It is the word
by which the LXX. use to render the word rnEn.; Of which we
have spoken before. And the examples are innumerable in the
Septuagint translation, and in authors of all sorts written in the
Greek language, where that word is taken at large, and cannot sig
nify a corporeal similitude; so that it is vain to insist upon particulars.
And this also belongs to the same head of inquiry with the former,
— namely, what likeness of God it was that man was created in,
whether of eyes, ears, nose, etc., or of holiness, etc.

His next allegation is from Job xiii. 7, 8, " Will ye accept his

102 VINDICIJE EVANGELICAL

person?" I^L!, irpotuxov aurou, — an allegation so frivolous that to stand
to answer it studiously would be ridiculous. 1. It is an interroga
tion, and doth not assert any thing. 2. The thing spoken against is
vpoffuKoXqtya,, which hath in it no regard to shape or corporeal per
sonality, but to the partiality which is used in preferring one before
another in justice. 3. The word mentioned, with its derivatives, is
used in as great or greater variety of metaphorical translations than
any other Hebrew word, and is by no means determined to be a
signification of that bulky substance which, with the soul, concurs
to make up the person of man. It is so used, Gen. xxxiil 18, M?"^,
— "Jacob pitched his tent before" (or " in the face of") " the city."
It is confessed that it is very frequently translated vpoffuKov by the
LXX., as it is very variously translated by them; sometimes 6 opdaX-
t*,6s. See Jer. xxxviii. 26; Neh. ii. 13; Job xvi. 16; Deut. ii. 36;
Prov. xxvii. 23. Besides that, it is used in many other places for
am, SVUVTI, a-^svavn, eirdyu, ivuviov, and in many more senses. So that
to draw an argument concerning the nature of God from a word so
amphibological, or of such frequent translation in metaphorical speech,
is very unreasonable.

Of what may be hence deduced this is the sum : " In every plea
or contest about the ways, dispensations, and judgments of God, that
which is right, exact, and according to the thing itself, is to be spoken,
his glory not standing in the least need of our flattery or lying;
therefore God is such a person as hath a bodily shape and similitude,
for there is no other person but what hath so."

His last argument is from John v. 37, "Ye have neither heard
his voice at any time, nor seen his shape," — OUTS tJdos at/roD iupa-
xars. But it argues a very great ignorance in all philosophical
and accurate writings, to appropriate e78os to a corporeal shape, it
being very seldom used, either in Scripture or elsewhere, in that
notion; — the Scripture having used it where that sense cannot be
fastened on it, as in 1 Thess. v. 22, 'AKO vavrbs i/dous irovqpou a.'TrtyfiaSt'
which may be rendered, " Abstain from every kind," or " every ap
pearance," but not from every shape " of evil;" and all other Greek
authors, who have spoken accurately and not figuratively of things,
use it perpetually almost in one of these two senses, and very seldom
if at all in the other.

How improperly, and with what little reason, these places are in
terpreted of a corporeal similitude or shape, hath been showed.
"Wherein the image of God consists the apostle shows, as was de
clared, determining it to be in the intellectual part, not in the bodily,1
Col. iii. 10, 'EvdusdfAsvoi rlv vsov (av6pu<rov) rov avaxaivovpfvov tig twiy-
.ar f}x.6va rou Kriaavrog auron. The word here used,

1 Plato said the same thing expressly, apud Stobseum, Eclogae Ethicse, lib. ii. cap.
iii p. 163.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 103

is of a grosser signification than t78os, which hath its original from
the intellectual operation of the mind; yet this the apostle determines
to relate to the mind and spiritual excellencies, so that it cannot,
from the places he hath mentioned, with the least colour of reason,
be concluded that God hath a corporeal similitude, likeness, person,
or shape.1

What hath already been delivered concerning the nature of God?
and is yet necessarily to be added, will not permit that much be pe
culiarly spoken to this head, for the removal of those imperfections
from him which necessarily attend that assignation of a bodily shape
to him which is here aimed at. That the Ancient of Days is not
really one in the shape of an old man, sitting in heaven on a throne,
glistering with a corporeal glory, his hair being white and his rai
ment beautiful, is sufficiently evinced from every property and per
fection which in the Scripture is assigned to him.

The Holy Ghost, speaking in the Scripture concerning God, doth
not without indignation suppose any thing to be likened or com
pared to him. Maimonides hath observed that these words, Aph,
Ira, etc., are never attributed to God but in the case of idolatry;
that never any idolater was so silly as to think that an idol of wood,
stone, or metal, was a god that made the heavens and earth ; but that
through them all idolaters intend to worship God.2 Now, to fancy
a corporeity in God, or that he is like a creature, is greater and more
irrational dishonour to him than idolatry. " To whom will ye liken
God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" Isa. xl. 18. " Have
ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from
the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the
earth? It is he that sitteth," etc. " To whom then will ye liken me, or
shall I be equal? saith the Holy One," verses 21-23, 25. Because the
Scripture speaks of the eyes and ears, nostrils and arms of the Lord,
and of man being made after his likeness, if any one shall conclude
that he sees, hears, smells, and hath the shape of a man, he must,
upon the same reason, conclude that he hath the shape of a lion, of
an eagle, and is like a drunken man, because in Scripture he is
compared to them, and so of necessity make a monster of him, and
worship a chimera.3

Nay, the Scripture plainly interprets itself as to these attributions

1 eta; lffTiftitvft.it natfov,ov» t%o* popQw. — Posidonius apud Stobseum; Eclogse Phy-
sicae, lib. i. cap. i. p. 2. I confess Epicurus said, ' AvUpuvetiStT; MU.I ml; 6eat/j — Stobasus
ibidem, cap. iii. p. 5. And possibly Mr B. might borrow his misshapen divinity from
him and the Anthropomorphites ; and then we have the pedigree of his wild positions.
But the more sober philosophers (as Stobaeus there tells us) held otherwise : 6tiv ol%
O.VTOV aiiSt ifaroii, oli&i (HTfnrov, ovkl ^ittfrarov, ov$i aXX» nn rupctn ofAitov, etc. ; which

Guil. Canterus renders thus, " Quod nee tangi, nee cerni potest Deus, neque sub men-
suram, yel terminum cadit aut alicui est corpori simile."

2 Videsis Rab. M. Maimonid. de Idolat. sect. 2, 3, etc.; et Notas Dionysii Vossii
ibidem.

• " Quse de Deodicuntur in sacro codice attfuvovutuc. interpretanda0""* °-«^«ar«f.''

104 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

unto God. His arm is not an arm of flesh, 2 Chron. xxxiL 8.
Neither are his eyes of flesh, neither seeth he as man seeth, Job
x. 4. Nay, the highest we can pretend to (which is our way of un
derstanding), though it hath some resemblance of him, yet falls it
infinitely short of a likeness or equality with him. And the Holy
Ghost himself gives a plain interpretation of his own intendment in
such expressions : for whereas, Luke xi. 20, our Saviour says that
he "with the finger of God cast out devils;" Matt, xii. 28, he affirms
that he did it " by the Spirit of God," intending the same thing. It
neither is nor can righteously be required that we should produce
any place of Scripture expressly affirming that God hath no shape,
nor hands, nor eyes, as we have, no more than it is that he is no
lion or eagle. It is enough that there is that delivered of him
abundantly which is altogether inconsistent with any such shape
as by Mr B. is fancied, and that so eminent a difference as that now
mentioned is put between his arms and eyes and ours, as manifests
them to agree in some analogy of the thing signified by them, and
not in an answerableness in the same kind. Wherefore I say, that
the Scripture speaking of God, though it condescends to the na
ture and capacities of men, and speaks for the most part to the
imagination (farther than which few among the sons of men were
ever able to raise their cogitations), yet hath it clearly delivered to
us such attributes of God as will not consist with that gross notion
which this man would put upon the Godhead. The infinity and im
mutability of God do manifestly overthrow the conceit of a shape
and form of God.1 Were it not a contradiction that a body should
be actually infinite, yet such a body could not have a shape, such a
one as he imagines. The shape of any thing is the figuration of it ;
the figuration is the determination of its extension towards several
parts, consisting in a determined proportion of them to each other ;
that determination is a bounding and limiting of them : so that if it
have a shape, that will be limited which was supposed to be infinite,
which is a manifest contradiction. But the Scripture doth plainly
show that God is infinite and immense, not in magnitude (that were
a contradtction, as will appear anon) but in essence. Speaking to our
fancy, it saith that " he is higher than heaven, deeper than hell,"
Job xi. 8 ; that " he fills heaven and earth," Jer. xxiii. 24 ; that " the
heaven of heavens cannot contain him," 1 Kings viii. 27 ; and it hath
many [such] expressions to shadow out the immensity of God, as was
manifest in our consideration of the last query. But not content to
have yielded thus to our infirmity, it delivers likewise, in plain and
literal terms, the infiniteness of God: "His understanding is infinite,"
Pa cxlvii. 5 ; and therefore his essence is necessarily so. This is a
consequence that none can deny who will consider it till he under-
1 Vid. D. Barnes in 1. partem Aquinatis, qusest. 3, art. 1, et Scholasticos passim.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGURE OF GOD. 105

stands the terms of it, as hath been declared. Yet, lest any should
hastily apprehend that the essence of God were not therefore neces
sarily infinite, the Holy Ghost saith, Ps. cxlv. 3, that " his greatness
hath no end," or is " inconceivable," which is infinite ; for seeing we
can carry on our thoughts, by calculation, potentially in infinitum, —
that is, whatever measure be assigned, we can continually multiply
it by greater and greater numbers, as they say, in infinitum, — it is
evident that there is no greatness, either of magnitude or essence,
which is unsearchable or inconceivable besides that which is actually
infinite. Such, therefore, is the greatness of God, in the strict and
literal meaning of the Scripture ; and therefore, that he should have
a shape implies a contradiction. But of this so much before as I
presume we may now take it for granted.

Now, this attribute of infinity doth immediately and demonstra
tively overthrow that gross conception of a human shape we are in
the consideration of; and so it doth, by consequence, overthrow the
conceit of any other, though a spherical shape. Again, —

Whatever is incorporeal is destitute of shape ; whatever is infinite
is incorporeal : therefore, whatever is infinite is destitute of shape.

All the question is of the minor proposition. Let us therefore
suppose an infinite body or line, and let it be bisected ; either then,
each half is equal to the whole, or less. If equal, the whole is equal
to the part ; if less, then that half is limited within certain bounds,
and consequently is finite, and so is the other half also : therefore,
two things which are finite shall make up an infinite ; which is a
contradiction.

Having, therefore, proved out of Scripture that God is infinite,
it follows also that he is incorporeal, and that he is without shape.

The former argument proved him to be without such a shape as
this catechist would insinuate ; this, that he is without any shape at
all. The same will be proved from the immutability or impassi
bility of God's essence, which the Scripture assigns to him : Mai.
iii. 6, " I am the LORD ; I change not." " The heavens are the work
of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou endurest : they shall be
changed : but thou art the same," Ps. cii. 25, 26.

If he be immutable, then he is also incorporeal, and consequently
without shape.

The former consequence is manifest, for every body is extended,
and consequently is capable of division, which is mutation ; where
fore, being immutable, he hath no shape.

Mr B/s great plea for the considering of his Catechism, and
insisting upon the same way of inquiry with himself, is from the
success which himself hath found in the discovery of sundry truths,
of which he gives an account in his book to the reader. That,
among the glorious discoveries made by him, the particular now

106 YINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

insisted on is not to be reckoned, I presume Mr B. knoweth. For
this discovery the world is beholding to one Audseus, a monk, of
whom you have a large account in Epiphanius, torn. i. lib. iii., Hser.
70 ; as also in Theodoret, lib. iv. Eccles. Hist, cap. x., who also gives
us an account of the man and his conversation, with those that
followed him. Austin also acquaints us with this worthy predecessor
of our author, De Hser. cap. 1. He that thinks it worth while to
know that we are not beholding to Mr B., but to this Audseus, for all
the arguments, whether taken from the creation of man in the image
of God or the attribution of the parts and members of a man unto
God in the Scripture, to prove him to have a visible shape, may at
his leisure consult the authors above mentioned, who will not suffer
him to ascribe the praise of this discovery to Mr B/s ingenious
inquiries. How the same figment was also entertained by a com
pany of stupid monks in Egypt, who, in pursuit of their opinion,
came in a great drove to Alexandria, to knock Theophilus the bishop
on the head, who had spoken against them, and how that crafty
companion deluded them with an ambiguity of expression, with what
learned stirs ensued thereon, we have a full relation in Socrat. Eccles.
Hist. lib. vi. cap. vii.1

As this madness of brain-sick men was always rejected by all per
sons of sobriety professing the religion of Jesus Christ, so was it never
embraced by the Jews, or the wiser sort of heathens, who retained
any impression of those common notions of God which remain in
the hearts of men.2 The Jews to this day do solemnly confess, in
their public worship, that God is not corporeal, that he hath no cor- ,
poreal propriety, and therefore can nothing be compared with him. So
one of the most learned of them of old: OUTS yap ai/dpuvopoppog 6 Qtbg,
OIITS Ssotidig avQpuffivov aupa, Phil, de Opificio Mundi ; — " Neither hath
God a human form, nor does a human body resemble him." And in
Sacrifi. Abel. : O-lds rd osa dvdpuffoig, sir! Qtov xvpioXoysTrai, xard^priffig bt
wopdruv sffTi wapqyopouffa rqv riptTtpav dff6si/tiav' — " Neither are those
things which are in us spoken properly of God, but there is an abuse
of names therein, relieving our weakness."

Likewise the heathens, who termed God vow, and -^/{j^uffiv and
<!rveZ[j,a, and dwapowoiov or duva.fj.iv, had the same apprehensions of
him. Thus discourses Mercurius ad Tatium, in Stobseus, serm. 78 :
Qsbv ftev voqaai ^aXfTrlv, ppdffat 8s ddvvarov' rb yap dffuparov ffu/j,a,n
crt^vai ddwarov' xai TO rsXsiov rSi drtXit' xaraXa&cdut ou dvvuroV xal rb
dtdiov rSi o'kiyoy^povi^t avyytvsadai, ftvSKoXov' o /*£? yap aii fffn, rb &s irap'sp-
yira.i' xai rb [itv a\riQtid ian, rb &i v<rb pavraff/ag ffxidfsrar rb de dadsvs-
orspov rov Iff^vporspov, xai rb sXarrov rou xptlrrovog dissrqxt roeovrov, Sffov rb

1 OVTUS ufiMi £/?«y us Qiou •xuHruirti. — Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. cap. xi.
»Minut. Felix, in Octav. Lactan. de Vera Sap. Mutius Pansa Pianensis de Osculo
Ethiiicce et Christianas Theol. c. 25 ; Origen. in Gen. Horn. 3 ; Aug. 1. 83, qusest. 22.

OF THE SHAPE AND BODILY FIGUEE OF GOD. 107

rou Sslov' rtdi fjAei\ rouruv didffraffig, dftavpo?' rqv rou xa\ou
o/j fj.lv yap rci eu&ara Ssara, yXurry ds rot, opa.ro, \sxrd, rb &a
xa! a<pavi$, xa! aff^rjf^driffrov, xa! {tyre e!~ vXqg vnoxsiftsvov, ivb
ruv ^furiftn ahMjfftw xaraXqpOrjvai ou duvarai. 'Evvoou/^ai tS rdr ivvoov-
pai, o i^siTTsfv oti duvarbv, rovro tariv 6 ©EOJ. And Calicratides apud Stob.,
Serm. 83 : Tb 8s sv sffriv apiarov avrbs, S-Trsp effri xarrav tvvoiav, ^uov
ovpdviov, a<p&aprov, ap^d n xai atria, rag ruv SXuv diaxoffftdffiog.

Of the like import is that distich of Xenophanes in Clemens
Alexan., Strom. 5: —

E/; 6toj it Tl S-loTffi xa,} KV^feafoiffi ft'fyiffTaf
&UTI Sifia; SvvriiTffiv Of&oiios, ou$i vovfta.

" There is one great God among gods and men,
Who is like to mortals neither as to body nor mind."

Whereunto answers that in Cato : —

" Si Deus est animus nobis nt carmina dicunt," etc.
And -^schylus, in the same place of Clemens, Strom. 5 : —

\aps7ri B'vr/Teav TOV &ia> xai firi $oxli
"Oftoiov HUTU ffufxixov xa0io'<ravai.

" Separate God from mortals, and think not thyself, of flesh, like
him/'

And Posidonius plainly in Stobseus as above : *O ®e6$ Icn w&iia.
votpbv xai Kupudss, oO/c '^ov ,uop<priv — " God is an intelligent fiery spirit,
not having any shape." And the same apprehension is evident in
that of Seneca, " Quid est Deus ? Mens universi. Quid est Deus ?
Quod vides totum, et quod non vides totum. Sic demum magni
tude sua illi redditur, qua nihil majus excogitari potest, si solus est
omnia, opus suum et extra et intra tenet. Quid ergo interest inter
naturam Dei et nostrarn? Nostri melior pars animus est, in illo
nulla pars extra animum." Natural. Quasst. lib. i. Prasfat. It would
be burdensome, if not endless, to insist on the testimonies that to
this purpose might be produced out of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero,
Epictetus, Julius Firmicus, and others of the same order. I shall
close with one of Alcinous, de Doctrina Platon. cap. x. : "Aroxov dz rb»
Qtbv t% 2X»]£ tJvat xai I'idovs' ou yap zffrai a-rXoDj olds dp^ixog' — " It is
absurd to say that God is of matter and form ; for if so, he could
neither be simple, nor the principal cause."

The thing is so clear, and the contrary, even by the heathen
philosophers, accounted so absurd, that I shall not stand to pursue
the arguments flowing from the other attributes of God, but proceed
to what follows.

103 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

CHAPTER IV.

Of the attribution of passions and affections, anger, fear, repentance, unto God —
In what sense it is done in the Scripture.

His next inquiry about the nature of God respects the attribution
of several affections and passions unto him in the Scriptures, of whose
sense and meaning he thus expresseth his apprehension : — •

Ques. Are there not, according to tJie perpetual tenor of the Scriptures, affec
tions and passions in God, as anger, fury, zeal, wrath, love, hatred, mercy, grace,
jealousy, repentance, grief, joy, fear?

Concerning which he labours to make the Scriptures determine in
the affirmative.

1. The mam of Mr Biddle's design, in his questions about the
nature of God, being to deprive the Deity of its distinct persons, its
omnipresence, prescience, and therein all other infinite perfections,
he endeavours to make him some recompense for all that loss by as
cribing to him in the foregoing query a human visible shape, and in
this, human, turbulent affections and passions. Commonly, where
men will not ascribe to the Lord that which is his due, he gives them
up to assign that unto him which he doth abhor, Jer. xliv. 15-17.
Neither is it easily determinable whether be the greater abomina
tion. By the first, the dependence of men upon the true God is
taken off; by the latter, their hope is fixed on a false. This, on both
sides, at present is Mr B/s sad employment. The Lord lay it not to
his charge, but deliver him from the snare of Satan, wherein he is
" taken alive at his pleasure" ! 2 Tim. ii. 26.

2. The things here assigned to God are ill associated, if to be un
derstood after the same manner. Mercy and grace we acknowledge
to be attributes of God ; the rest mentioned are by none of Mr B/s
companions esteemed any other than acts of his will, and those meta
phorically assigned to him.1

3. To the whole I ask, whether these things are in the Scriptures
ascribed properly unto God, denoting such affections and passions in
him as those in us are which are so termed? or whether they are
assigned to him and spoken of him metaphorically only, in reference
to his outward works and dispensations, correspondent and answering
to the actings of men in whom such affections are, and under the
power whereof they are in those actings? If the latter be affirmed,
then as such an attribution of them unto God is eminently consistent
with all his infinite perfections and blessedness, so there can be no
difference about this question and the answers given thereunto, all
men readily acknowledging that in this sense the Scripture doth
ascribe all the affections mentioned unto God, of which we say as he

1 Crell. de Deo : seu Vera Relig., cap. xxix. p. 295.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. ] 09

of old, Taura avdpu<ffo<7ra@u$ f^sv \syovrai, ^toffptvug ds voovvrai. But this,
I fear, will not serve Mr B/s turn. The very phrase and manner of
expression used in this question, the plain intimation that is in the
forehead thereof of its author's going off from the common received
interpretation of these attributions unto God, do abundantly manifest
that it is their proper significancy which he contends to fasten on
God, and that the affections mentioned are really and properly in
him as they are in us. This being evident to be his mind and in-
tendment, as we think his anthropopathism in this query not to
come short in folly and madness of his anthropomorphitism in that
foregoing, so I shall proceed to the removal of this insinuation in the
way and method formerly insisted on.

Mr B.'s masters tell us " That these affections are vehement com
motions of the will of God, whereby he is carried out earnestly to
the object of his desires, or earnestly declines and abhors what falls
not out gratefully or acceptably to him."1 I shall first speak of them
in general, and then to the particulars (some or all) mentioned by
MrB.:— '

First, In general, that God is perfect and perfectly blessed, I sup
pose will not be denied ; it cannot be but by denying that he is God.1
He that is not perfect in himself and perfectly blessed is not God.
To that which is perfect in any kind nothing is wanting in that kind.
To that which is absolutely perfect nothing is wanting at all. He
who is blessed is perfectly satisfied and filled, and hath no farther
desire for supply. He who is blessed in himself is all-sufficient for
himself. If God want or desire any thing for himself, he is neither
perfect nor blessed. To ascribe, then, affections to God properly
(such as before mentioned), is to deprive him of his perfection and
blessedness. The consideration of the nature of these and the like
affections will make this evident.

1. Affections, considered in themselves, have always an incomplete,
imperfect act of the will or volition joined with them. They are
something that lies between the firm purpose of the soul and the
execution of that purpose.3 The proper actings of affections lie be
tween these two ; that is, in an incomplete, tumultuary volition. That
God is not obnoxious to such volitions and incomplete actings of the
will, besides the general consideration of his perfections and blessed
ness premised, is evident from that manner of procedure which is
ascribed to him. His purposes and his works comprise all his act
ings. As the Lord hath purposed, so hath he done. " He worketh
all things after the counsel of his own will." " Who hath known his

i " Voluntatis divinse commotiones, praesertim vehementiores, seu actus ejusmodi,
quibus voluntas vehementius vel in objectum suum fertur, vel ab eo refugit, atque ab-
horret," etc. — Crell. de Deo : seu Vera Relig., cap. xxix. p. 295. Vid. etiam cap. xxx., xxxi.

z Deut. xxxii. 4 ; Job xxxvii. 16; Rom. i. 25, ix. 5 ; 1 Tim. i. 11, vi. 15.

8 Crell. de Deo, ubi supra.

110 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

mind? or who hath been his counsellor ? Of him, and through him,
and to him, are all things."1

2. They have their dependence on that wherewith he in whom
they are is affected; that is, they owe their rise and continuance to
something without him in whom they are. A man's fear ariseth
from that or them of whom he is afraid ; by them it is occasioned,
on them it depends. Whatever affects any man (that is, the stirring
of a suitable affection), in all that frame of mind and soul, in all the
volitions and commotions of will which so arise from thence, he de
pends on something without him. Yea,> our being affected with some
thing without lies at the bottom of most of our purposes and resolves.
Is it thus with God, with him who is I AM? Exod. iii. 14. Is he in
dependence upon any thing without him ? Is it not a most eminent
contradiction to speak of God in dependence on any other thing?
Must not that thing either be God or be reduced to some other with
out and besides him, who is God, as the causes of all our affections
are? " God is in one mind, and who can turn him? what his soul
desireth, that he doeth," Job xxiii. 13.

3. Affections are necessarily accompanied with change and mu
tability; yea, he who is affected properly is really changed; yea,
there is no more unworthy change or alteration than that which is
accompanied with passion, as is the change that is wrought by the
affections ascribed to God. A sedate, quiet, considerate alteration is
far less inglorious and unworthy than that which is done in and with
passion.3 Hitherto we have taken God upon his testimony, that he
is the "LoKD, and he changeth not," Mai. iii. 6 ; that "with him there
is neither change nor shadow of turning;" — it seems, like the worms
of the earth, he varieth every day.

4. Many of the affections here ascribed to God do eminently de
note impotence; which, indeed, on this account, both by Socinians and
Arminians, is directly ascribed to the Almighty. They make him
affectionately and with commotion of will to desire many things in
their own nature not impossible, which yet he cannot accomplish or
bring about (of which I have elsewhere spoken) ; yea, it will appear
that the most of the affections ascribed to God by Mr B., taken in a
proper sense, are such as are actually ineffectual, or commotions
through disappointments, upon the account of impotency or defect
of power.

Corol. To ascribe affections properly to God is to make him weak,
imperfect, dependent, changeable, and impotent.

Secondly, Let a short view be taken of the particulars, some or all
of them, that Mr B. chooseth to instance in. " Anger, fury, wrath,
zeal" (the same in kind, only differing in degree and circumstances),

i Isa.^xiv. 24; Eph. i. 11; Rom. xi. 33-36; Isa. xl. 13, 14.

T< ni ariStifta ftiT^oy javji<r» TOU vft^.a.^a.nn rt «7-:nr<rav rftvntdti ; — Philo.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. Ill

are the first he instances in ; and the places produced to make good
this attribution to God are, Num. xxv. 3, 4; Ezek. v. 13; Exod.
xxxii. 11, 12; Rom. i. 18.

1. That mention is made of the anger, wrath, and fury of God in
the Scripture is not questioned. Num. xxv. 4, Deut. xiii. 17, Josh,
vii. 26, Ps. Ixxviii. 31, Isa. xiii. 9, Deut. xxix. 24, Judges ii. 14, Ps.
Ixxiv. 1, Ixix. 24, Isa. xxx. 30, Lam. ii. 6, Ezek. v. 15, Ps. Ixxviii. 49,
Isa xxxiv. 2, 2 Chrou. xxviii. 11, Ezra x. 14, Hab. iii. 8, 12, are
farther testimonies thereof. The words also in the original, in all
the places mentioned, express or intimate perturbation of mind,
commotion of spirit, corporeal mutation of the parts of the body,
and the like distempers of men acting under the power of that
passion. The whole difference is about the intendment of the Holy
Ghost in these attributions, and whether they are properly spoken of
God, asserting this passion to be in him in the proper significancy
of the words, or whether these things be not taken uvdpuvoKaOXig,
and to be understood SioirpfTrus, in such a sense as may answer the
meaning of the figurative expression, assigning them their truth to
the utmost, and yet to be interpreted in a suitableness to divine per
fection and blessedness.

2. The anger, then, which in the Scripture is assigned to God, we
say denotes two things : —

(1.) His vindictive justice, or constant and immutable will of ren
dering vengeance for sin.1 So God's purpose of the demonstration of
his justice is called his being " willing to show his wrath" or anger,
Rom. ix. 22 ; so God's anger and his judgments are placed together,
Ps. vii. 6; and in that anger he judgeth, verse 8. And in this sense is
the "wrath of God" said to be "revealed from heaven," Rom. i. 18;
that is, the vindictive justice of God against sin to be manifested in
the effepts of it, or the judgments sent and punishments inflicted on
and throughout the world.

(2.) By anger, wrath, zeal, fury, the effects of anger are denoted :
Rom. iii. 5, " Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance ?" The
words are, 6 eimp'epuv rqv opyw, — " who inflicteth or bringeth anger on
man ;" that is, sore punishments, such as proceed from anger ; that is,
God's vindictive justice. And Eph. v. 6, " For these things cometh
the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Is it the pas
sion or affection of anger in God that Mr B. talks of, that comes upon
the children of disobedience? or is it indeed the effect of his justice
for this sin ? * Thus the day of judgment is called the " day of wrath"
and of " anger," because it is the day of the " revelation of the
righteous judgment of God :" Rom. ii. 5, " After thy hardness/'

1 Vid. Andr. Bivetum in Ps. ii. p. 11, et in Exod. iy. p. 14, et Aquinat. 1, part. q. 3,
art. 2, ad secundum. " Ira dicitur de Deo secundum similitudinem effectus, quia pro-
prium est irati punire, ejus ira punitio metaphorice vocatur."

2 " 'H Ipyri TIU emu, Divina ultio, Rom. i. 18, CoL iii. 6." — Grotius in locum.

112 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

etc. In the place of Ezekiel (chap. v. 13) mentioned by Mr B., the
Lord tells them he will " cause his fury to rest upon them," and "ac
complish it upon them." I ask whether he intends this of any passion
in him (and if so, how a passion in God can rest upon a man), or the
judgments which for their iniquities he did inflict ? We say, then,
anger is not properly ascribed to God, but metaphorically, denoting
partly his vindictive justice, whence all punishments flow, partly
the effects of it in the punishments themselves, either threatened or
inflicted, in their terror and bitterness, upon the account of what is
analogous therein to our proceeding under the power of that passion;
and so is to be taken in all the places mentioned by Mr B. For, —

3. Properly, in the sense by him pointed to, anger, wrath, etc.,
are not in God. Anger is denned by the philosopher to be, opi^i;
(MTU Xtwnjs TifAupias paivopevri;, dia paivoftsvrjv oXiyupiav, — " desire joined
with grief of that which appears to be revenge, for an appearing ne
glect or contempt." To this grief, he tells you, there is a kind of
pleasure annexed, arising from the vehement fancy which an angry
person hath of the revenge he apprehends as future,1 — which, saith
he, " is like the fancy of them that dream,"3 — and he ascribes this pas
sion mostly to weak, impotent persons. Ascribe this to God, and
you leave him nothing else. There is not one property of his nature
wherewith it is consistent. If he be properly and literally angry,
and furious, and wrathful, he is moved, troubled, perplexed, desires
revenge, and is neither blessed nor perfect. But of these things in
our geneial reasons against the propriety of these attributions after
ward.

4. Mr. B. hath given us a rule in his preface, that when any thing
is ascribed to God in one place which is denied of him in another,
then it is not properly ascribed to him. Now, God says expressly
that " fury" or anger "is not in him," Isa, xxvii. 4; and therefore it
is not properly ascribed to him.

5. Of all the places where mention is made of God's repentings,
or his repentance, there is the same reason. Exod. xxxiL 14, Gen.
vi. 6, 7, Judges x. 1 6, Deut. xxx. 9, are produced by Mr. B. That one
place of 1 Sam. xv. 29, where God affirms that he " knoweth no re
pentance," casts all the rest under a necessity of an interpretation suit
able unto it. Of all the affections or passions which we are obnoxious
to, there is none that more eminently proclaims imperfection, weak
ness, and want in sundry kinds, than this of repentance. If not sins,
mistakes, and miscarriages (as for the most part they are), yet dis
appointment, grief, and trouble, are always included in it. So is it
in that expression, Gen. vi. 6, " It repented the LORD that he had

'H «J» T«T» lyyioiftiiin (fetfraff'ta «5avn» faili, uffftf fi ru» i\vriiui. — Arist. Rhet. lib. ii

cap. ii.

ipyhei Ctrl. — Id. ubi sup.

OF THE ATTRIBUTION OF PASSIONS, ETC., TO GOD. 113

made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."1 What
but his mistake and great disappointment, by a failing of wisdom,
foresight, and power, can give propriety to these attributions unto
God? The change God was going then to work in his providence
on the earth was such or like that which men do when they repent
of a thing, being " grieved at the heart" for what they had formerly
done. So are these things spoken of God to denote the kind of the
things which he doth, not the nature of God himself; otherwise
such expressions as these would suit him, whose frame of spirit and
heart is so described : " Had I seen what would have been the issue
of making man, I would never have done it. Would I had never
been so overseen as to have engaged in such a business ! What have
I now got by my rashness ? nothing but sorrow and grief of heart
redounds to me." And do these become the infinitely blessed God ?
6. Fear is added, from Deut. xxxii. 26, 27. "Fear," saith the wise
man, " is a betraying of those succours which reason offereth;"3 — na
ture's avoidance of an impendent evil ; its contrivance to flee and pre
vent what it abhors, being in a probability of coming upon it ; a tur
bulent weakness. This God forbids in us, upon the account of his
being our God, Isa. xxxv. 4 ; "Fear not, O worm Jacob," etc., chap. xli.
14. Everywhere he asserts fear to be unfit for them who depend on
him and his help, who is able in a moment to dissipate, scatter, and
reduce to nothing, all the causes of their fear. And if there ought
to be no fear where such succour is ready at hand, sure there is none
in Him who gives it. Doubtless, it were much better to exclude the
providence of God out of the world than to assert him afraid pro
perly and directly of future events. The schools say truly, " Quod
res sunt futurae, a voluntate Dei est (effectiva vel permissiva)." How,
then, can God be afraid of what he knows will, and purposeth shall,
come to pass ? He doth, he will do, things in some likeness to what
we do for the prevention of what we are afraid of. He will not
'scatter his people, that their adversaries may not have advantage to
trample over them. When we so act as to prevent any thing that,
unless we did so act, would befall us, it is because we are afraid of
the coming of that thing upon us : hence is the reason of that attri
bution unto God. That properly He should be afraid of what comes

1 Theodoret on this place tells us, " "ol> priv, <Js <rm; Qa/riy, etc. Non autem utfuenmt
quidam" (so that Mr B. is not the first that held this opinion), " it-a quadam et poani-

tentia ductUS Deus haec egit : Taura. yap <rm avfya^nva <xa.Qn n $i $'»<*• Qvffis \\tu6ipa, vrufai."

And then he adds, " TJ "Miron <raiwv, etc. Quomodo ergo pcenitentia cadat in Deum ?"
His answer is, " olx oli \n\ Qtou psrapiteia, etc. Quare psenitentia Dei nihil aliud est,
quam mutatio dispensationis ejus. Pcenitet me (inquit) quod constituerim Saul regem,
pro eo quod est, statui ilium deponere. Sic in hoc loco (Gen. vi. 6), Pcenitet fecisse me
hominem; hoc est, decrevi perdere humanum genus." — Theod. in Gen. quaest. 50, torn. i.
pp. 41, 42.

2 "Etrra $t QoSoi, \vfn n; « rKpa%ri IK (favraffix;, /titXXavros KO.X.OU tl <Q$&(rtx.ou, % Z-wrnpou- —
Arist. Ehet. lib. ii. cap. vi.

VOL. XII. 8

114 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

to pass who knows from eternity what will so do, who can with the
breath of his mouth destroy all the objects of his dislike, who is in
finitely wise, blessed, all-sufficient, and the sovereign disposer of the
lives, breath, and ways of all the sons of men, is fit for Mr. B. and
no man else to affirm. " All the nations are before him as the drop
of the bucket, and the dust of the balance, as vanity, as nothing; he
upholdeth them by the word of his power ; in him all men live, and
move, and have their being," and can neither live, nor act, nor be
without him ; their life, and breath, and all their ways, are in his
hands ; he brings them to destruction, and says, " Keturn, ye children
of men ;"1 and must he needs be properly afraid of what they will do
to him and against him ?

7. Of God's jealousy and hatred, mentioned from Ps. v. 4, 5,
Exod. xx. 5, Deut. xxxii. 21, there is the same reason. Such effects
as these things in us produce shall they meet withal who provoke
him by their blasphemies and abominations. Of love, mercy, and
grace, the condition is something otherwise : principally they denote
God's essential goodness and kindness, which is eminent amongst his
infinite perfections ; and secondarily the effects thereof, in and
through Jesus Christ, are denoted by these expressions. To manifest
that neither they nor any thing else, as they properly intend any
affections or passions of the mind, any commotions of will, are pro
perly attributed to God, unto what hath been spoken already these
ensuing considerations may be subjoined :— r

(1.) Where no cause of stirring up affections or passions can have
place or be admitted, there no affections are to be admitted ; for
to what end should we suppose that whereof there can be no use to
eternity? If it be impossible any affection in God should be stirred
up or acted, is it not impossible any such should be in him ? The
causes stirring up all affections are the access of some good desired,
whence joy, hope, desire, etc., have their spring ; or the approach of
some evil to be avoided, which occasions fear, sorrow, anger, repent
ance, and the like. Now, if no good can be added to God, whence
should joy and desire be stirred up in him ? if no evil can befall him,
in himself or any of his concernments, whence should he have fear,
Borrow, or repentance ? Our goodness extends not to him ; he
hath no need of us or our sacrifices, Ps. xvi. 2, 1. 8-10 ; Job xxxv.
6-8. " Can a man be profitable unto God, as he that is wise may be
profitable to himself ? Is it any pleasure to the Almighty, that thou
art righteous? or is it gain to him, that thou makest thy ways per
fect?" chap. xxii. 2, 3.

(2.) The apostle tells us that God. is " blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5 j

i Acts xv. 18; 2 Sam. xxii. 16; Job iv. 9; Ps. xviii. 15; Rom. i. 25; Gen. xvii. 1;
Horn. ix. 16-18, etc., xi. 34-36; Isa. xl. 15; Heb. i. 3 ; Pa. xxxiii 9- Acts xvii.
24-28 ; Ps. L 8 ; Dan. v. 23 ; Ps. xc. 3; Job xxxiv. 19.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. ] 15

" He is the blessed and only Potentate," 1 Tim. vl 15 ; " God all-
sufficient/' Gen. xvii. 1. That which is inconsistent with absolute
blessedness and all-sufficiency is not to be ascribed to God ; to do
so casts him down from his excellency. But can he be blessed, is
he all-sufficient, who is tossed up and down with hope, joy, fear,
sorrow, repentance, anger, and the like ? Doth not fear take off
from absolute blessedness ? Grant that God's fear doth not long
abide, yet whilst it doth so, he is less blessed than he was before and
than he is after his fear ceaseth. When he hopes, is he not short in
happiness of that condition which he attains in the enjoyment of
what he hoped for ? and is he not lower when he is disappointed
and falls short of his expectation ? Did ever the heathens speak
with more contempt of what they worshipped ? Formerly the pride
of some men heightened them to fancy themselves to be like God,
without passions or affections, Ps. 1. 21 ; being not able to abide
in their attempt against their own sense and experience, it is now
endeavoured to make God like to us, in having such passions and
affections. My aim is brevity, having many heads to speak unto.
Those who have written on the attributes of God, — his self-sufficiency
and blessedness, simplicity, immutability, etc., — are ready to tender
farther satisfaction to them who shall desire it.

CHAPTER V.

Of God's prescience or foreknowledge,

His next attempt is to overthrow and remove the prescience or
foreknowledge of God, with what success the farther consideration of
the way whereby he endeavours it will manifest. His question (the
engine whereby he works) is thus framed : —

As for our free actions which are neither past nor present, but may afterward
either be or not be, what are the chief passages of Scripture from whence it is
wont to be gathered that God knoweth not such actions until they come to pass,
yea, that there are such actions ?

That we might have had a clearer acquaintance with the intend-
ment of this interrogation, it is desirable Mr Biddle had given us his
sense on some particulars, which at first view present themselves to
the trouble of every ordinary reader ; as, —

1. How we may reconcile the words of Scripture given in answer
to his preceding query with the design of this. There it is asserted
that God " understandeth our thoughts" (which certainly are of our
free actions, if any such there are) " afar off ;" here, that he knows not
our free actions that are future, and not yet wrought or performed.

2 By whom is it " wont to be gathered" from the following scrip.

116 VINDICIJ2 EVANGELICLE.

tures that " God knowetli not our free actions until they come to
pass." Why doth not this "mere Christian," that is of no sect, name
his companions and associates in these learned collections from
Scripture ? Would not his so doing discover him to be so far from
a mere Christian, engaged in none of the sects that are now amongst
Christians, as to be of that sect which the residue of men so called
will scarce allow the name of a Christian unto?1

3. What he intends by the close of his query, " Yea, that there
are such actions." An advance is evident in the words towards a
farther negation of the knowledge of God than what was before
expressed. Before, he says, God knows not our actions that are
future contingent; here, he knows not that there are such actions.
The sense of this must be, either that God knows not that there are
any such actions as may or may not be, — which would render him
less knowing than Mr B., who hath already told us that such there
be, — or else that he knows not such actions when they are, at least
without farther inquiring after them, and knowledge obtained be
yond what from his own infinite perfections and eternal purpose he
is furnished withal. In Mr B/s next book or catechism, I desire he
would answer these questions also.

Now in this endeavour of his Mr B. doth but follow his leaders.
Socinus in his Prelections, where the main of his design is to vindi
cate man's free-will into that latitude and absoluteness as none
before him had once aimed at, in his eighth chapter objects to
himself this foreknowledge of God as that which seems to abridge
and cut short the liberty contended for.3 He answers that he
grants not the foreknowledge pretended, and proceeds hi that and
the two following chapters, labouring to answer all the testimonies
and arguments which are insisted on for the proof and demonstra
tion of it, giving his own arguments against it, chap. xi. Crellius
is something more candid, as he pretends, but indeed infected with
the same venom with the other; for after he hath disputed for
sundry pages to prove the foreknowledge of God, he concludes at
last that for those things that are future contingent, he knows only
that they are so, and that possibly they may come to pass, possibly
they may not3 Of the rest of their associates few have spoken ex-

1 Stegman. Photin. Eefut. Disput. 1 q. 2; An Photiniani ullo modo Christian! dici
queant ; Neg. Martin. Smiglec. Jes. Nova Monstra, novi Ariani. cap. 1 ; Arianos nullo
modo Christianos dici posse.

* " Ut ad rationem istam non minus plene quam plane respondeamus, animadverten-
dum est, infallibilem istam Dei praenotionem, quam pro re concessa adversarii sumunt,
a nobis non admitti." — Socin. Praelec. cap. viii. p. 25. "Cum igitur nulla ratio, nullus
sacrarum literarum locus sit, ex quo aperte colligi possit, Deum omnia quse fiunt,
scivisse antequam fierent, concludendum est, minime asserendam esse a nobis istam
Dei pnescientiam : prsesertim, cum et rationes non paucae, et sacra testimonia non
desint, unde earn plane negandam esse apparet." — Idem, cap. xi. p. 38.

8 " Itaque inconsiderate illi faciunt, qui futura contingentia Deum determinate scire

OF GOD'S PEESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 117

pressly to this thing. Smalcius once and again manifests himself to
consent with his masters in his disputations against Franzius, ex
pressly consenting to what Socinus had written in his Prelections,
and affirming the same thing himself, yea, disputing eagerly for the
same opinion with him,1

For the vindication of God's foreknowledge, I shall proceed in
the same order as before in reference to the other attributes of God
insisted on, namely: — 1. What Mr B. hath done, how he hath dis
posed of sundry places of Scripture for the proof of his assertion,
with the sense of the places by him so produced, is to be con
sidered ; 2. Another question and answer are to be supplied in the
room of his ; 3. The truth vindicated to be farther confirmed.

For the first : —

In the proof of the assertion proposed Mr B. finds himself entangled
more than ordinarily, though I confess .his task in general be such as
no man not made desperate by the loss of all in a shipwreck of faith
would once have undertaken. To have made good his proceeding
according to his engagement, he ought at least to have given us texts
of Scripture express in the letter, as by him cut off from the state,
condition, and coherence, wherein by the Holy Ghost they are placed,
for the countenancing of his assertion : but here, being not able to
make any work in his method, proposed and boasted in as signal and
uncontrollable, no apex or tittle in the Scripture being pointed to
wards the denial of God's knowing any thing or all things, past, pre
sent, and to come, he moulds his question into a peculiar fashion, and
asks, whence or from what place of Scripture may such a thing as he
there avers be gathered ; at once plainly declining the trial he had
put himself upon of insisting upon express texts of Scripture only,
not one of the many quoted by him speaking one word expressly to
the business in hand, and laying himself naked to all consequences
rightly deduced from the Scripture, and expositions given to the letter
of some places suitable to "the proportion of faith," Rom. xii. 6. That,
then, which he would have, he tells you is gathered from the places of
Scripture subjoined, but how, by whom, by what consequence, with
what evidence of reason, it is so gathered, he tells you not. An
understanding, indeed, informed with such gross conceptions of the
nature of the Deity as Mr B. hath laboured to insinuate into the
minds of men, might gather, from his collection of places of Scrip
ture for his purpose in hand, that God is afraid, troubled, grieved,

aivmt, quia alias non esset omniscius : cum potius, ideo ilia determinate futura non
concipiat, quia est omniscius." — Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. p. 201.

1 " Nam si omnia futura, qualiacunque sunt, Deo ab omni aeternitate determinate
cognita fuisse contendas ; necesse est statuere omnia necessario fieri, ac futura esse.
Unde sequitur, nullam esse, aut fuisse unquam, humanse voluntatis libertatem, ac
porro nee religionem." — Idem ibid, p. 202. Smalcius Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 1.
de Trinitat. p. 3, disput. 12, de Caus. Peccat. p. 428, 429, etc., 435.

118 VINDICL3E EVANGELIC^.

that he repenteth, altereth and changeth his mind to and fro ; but
of his knowledge or foreknowledge of things, whether he have any
such thing or not, there is not the least intimation, unless it be in
this, that if he had any such foreknowledge, he need not put himself
to so much trouble and vexation, nor so change and alter his mind,
as he doth. And with such figments as these (through the infinite,
wise, and good providence of God, punishing the wantonness of the
minds and lives of men, by giving them up to strong delusions and
vain imaginations, in the darkness of their foolish hearts, 2 Thess.
ii. 10-12, so far as to change the glory of the incorruptible God
into the likeness of a corruptible, weak, ignorant, sinful man, Rom.

1. 23), are we now to deal.

But let the places themselves be considered. To these heads they
may be referred: — 1. Such as ascribe unto God fear and being afraid.
Deut. xxxii. 26, 27; Exod. xiii. 17; Gen. iii. 22, 23, are of this sort.

2. Repentance, 1 Sam. xv. 10, 11, ult. 3. Change, or alteration of
mind, Num. xiv. 27, 30; 1 Sam. ii. 30. 4. Expectation whether a
thing will answer his desire or no, Isa. v. 4. Conjecturing, Jer.
xxxvi. 1 -3 ; Ezek. xii. 1-3. 5. Trying of experiments, Judges iii. 1, 4 ;
Dan. xii. 10; 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. From all which and the like it
may, by Mr B/s direction and help, be thus gathered : " If God be
afraid of what is to come to pass, and repenteth him of what he hath
done when he finds it not to answer his expectation ; if he sits divin
ing and conjecturing at events, being often deceived therein, and
therefore tries and makes experiments that he may be informed
of the true state of things : then certainly he knows not the free ac
tions of men, that are not yet come to pass." The antecedent Mr B.
hath proved undeniably from ten texts of Scripture, and doubtless the
consequent is easily to be gathered by any of his disciples. Doubt
less it is high time that the old, musty catechisms of prejudicate
persons, who scarce so much as once consulted with the Scriptures
in their composures, as being more engaged into factions, were re
moved out of the way and burned, that this " mere Christian" may
have liberty to bless the growing generation with such notions of God
as the idolatrous Pagans of old would have scorned to have received.

But do not the Scriptures ascribe all the particulars mentioned
unto God? Can you blame Mr B. without reflection on them?
If only what the Scripture affirms in the letter, and not the sense
wherein and the manner how it affirms it (which considerations are
allowed to all the writings and speakings of the sons of men) is to be
considered, the end seeming to be aimed at in such undertakings as
this of Mr B., namely, to induce the atheistical spirits of the sons of
men to a contempt and scorn of them and their authority, will pro
bably be sooner attained than by the efficacy of any one engine raised
against them in the world besides.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OB FOREKNOWLEDGE. 119

As to the matter under consideration^ I have some few things in
general to propose to Mr B., and then I shall descend to the particu
lars insisted on: —

First, then, I desire to know whether the things mentioned, as
fear, grief, repentance, trouble, conjecturings, making trials of men
for his own information, are ascribed properly to God as they are unto
men, or tropically and figurativelyj with a condescension to us, to ex
press the things spoken of, and not to describe the nature of God.1
If the first be said, namely, that these things are ascribed properly
to God, and really signify of him the things in us intended in them, then
to what hath been spoken in the consideration taken of the foregoing
query, I shall freely add, for mine own part, I will not own nor wor
ship him for my God who is truly and properly afraid of what ah1 the
men in the world either will or can do ; who doth, can do, or hath
done any thing, or suffered any thing to be done, of which he doth or
can truly and properly repent himself, with sorrow and grief for his mis
take; or that sits in heaven divining and conjecturing at what men
will do here below : and do know that he whom I serve in my spirit will
famish and starve all such gods out of the world. But of this before.
If these things are ascribed to God figuratively and improperly, dis
covering the kind of his works and dispensations> not his own nature
or property, I would fain know what inference can be made or con
clusion drawn from such expressions, directly calling for a figurative
interpretation ? For instance, if God be said to repent that he had
done such a thing, because such and such things are come to pass
thereupon, if this repentance in God be not properly ascribed to him
(as by Mr B/s own rule it is not), but denotes only an alteration and
change in the works that outwardly are of him, in an orderly subser
viency to the immutable purpose of his will, what can thence be
gathered to prove that God foreseeth not the free actions of men ?
And this is the issue of Mr B/s confirmation of the thesis couched
in his query insisted on from the Scriptures.

2. I must crave leave once more to mind him of the rule he hath
given us in his preface, namely, "That where a thing is improperly as
cribed to God, in some other place it is denied of him," as he instances
in that of his being weary: so that whatever is denied of him in any
one place is not properly ascribed to him in any other. Now, though
God be said, in some of the places by him produced, to repent, yet it
is in another expressly said that he doth not so, and that upon such

'"Poenitentia infert ignorantiam praeteriti, preseritis, et futuri, mutationem volun-
tatis, et errorem in consiliis, quorum nihil in Deum cadere potest : dicitur tamen ille me-
taphorice pcenitentia duci, quemadmodum nos, quando alicujus rei pcenitet, abolemus id
quod antea feceramus : quod fieri potest sine tali mutatione voluntatisi qua nunc homo
aliquid facit, quod post mutato animo, destruit." — Manasseh Ben. Israel, conciliat. in Gen.
vi. q. 23. " Pcenitentia, cum mutabilitatem importet, non potest esse in Deo, dicitur
tamcn poenitere, eo quod ad modum pcenitentis se habet, quando destruit quod fecerat."
—Lyra ad 1 Sam. xv. 35.

120 YENDICLE EVANGELIOE.

a general ground and reason as is equally exclusive of all those other
passions and affections, upon whose assignment unto God the whole
strength of Mr B/s plea against the prescience of God doth depend :
1 Sam. xv. 29, " Also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent :
for he is not a man, that he should repent" The immutability of his
nature, and unlikeness to men in obnoxiousness to alterations, are as
serted as the reason of his not repenting; which will equally extend its
force and efficacy to the removal from him of all the other human
affections mentioned. And this second general consideration of
the foundation of Mr B/s plea is sufficient for the removal of the
whole.

3. I desire to know whether indeed it is only the free actions of
men that are not yet done that Mr B. denies to be known of God,
or whether he excludes him not also from the knowledge of the pre
sent state, frame, and actings of the hearts of men, and how they stand
affected towards him, being therein like other rulers among men, who
may judge of the good and evil actions of men so far as they are
manifest and evident, but how men in their hearts stand affected to
them, their rule, government, and authority, they know not? To make
this inquiry, I have not only the observation premised from the words
of the close of Mr B/s query being of a negative importance (" Yea,
that there are such actions"), but also from some of the proofs by
him produced of his former assertion being interpreted according to
the literal significancy of the words, as exclusive of any figure, which he
insisteth on. Of this sort is that of Gen. xxii. 1, 2, 10-12, where God
is said to tempt Abraham,1 and upon the issue of that trial says to him
(which words Mr B., by putting them in a different character, points
to as comprehensive of what he intends to gather and conclude from
them), "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not with
held thy son, thine only son, from me." The conclusion which Mr B.
guides unto from hence is, that God knew not that which he inquired
after, and therefore tempted Abraham that he might so do, and upon
the issue of that trial says, "Now I know." But what was it that God
affirms that now he knew? Not any thing future, not any free ac
tion that was not as yet done, but something of the present condition
and frame of his heart towards God, — namely,, his fear of God ; not
whether he would fear him, but whether he did fear him then. If
this, then, be properly spoken of God, and really as to the nature of
the thing itself, then is he ignorant no less of things present than of
those that are for to come. He knows not who fears him nor who
hates him, unless he have opportunity to try them in some such way
as he did Abraham. And then what a God hath this man deline-

1 " Ex hac actione propter quam ab omnibus Devun timens vocaberis, cognoscent
omnes, quantus in te sit timer Dei, et quosque pertingat." — R. Mos. Ben. Maimon.
More Nevoch. p. 3, cap. xxiv.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OB FOREKNOWLEDGE. 121

ated to us! How like the dunghill deities of the heathen, who speak
after this rate!1 Doubtless the description that Elijah gave of Baal
would better suit him than any of those divine perfections which
the living, all-seeing God hath described himself by. But now, if Mr
B. will confess that God knows all the things that are present, and
that this inquiry after the present frame of the heart and spirit of
a man is improperly ascribed to him, from the analogy of his pro
ceedings, in his dealing with him, to that which we insist upon
when we would really find out what we do not know, then I would
only ask of him why those other expressions which he mentions,
looking to what is to come, being of the same nature and kind with
this, do not admit of, yea call for, the same kind of exposition and
interpretation.

Neither is this the only place insisted on by Mr B. where the
inquiry ascribed unto God, and the trial that he makes, is not in
reference to things to come, but punctually to what is present : Deut.
viii. 2, xiii. 3, " The LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye
love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul ;"
2 Chron. xxxii. 31, " God left him, to try him, that he might know
all that was in his heart ;" and Phil. iv. 6, " In every thing let your
requests be made known unto God." Let Mr B. tell us now plainly
whether he supposes all these things to be spoken properly of God,
and that indeed God knows not our hearts, the frame of them, nor
what in them we desire and aim at, without some eminent trial and
inquiry, or until we ourselves do make known what is in them unto
him. If this be the man's mind (as it must be, if he be at any agree
ment with himself in his principles concerning these scriptural attri
butions unto God), for my part I shall be so far from esteeming him
eminent as a mere Christian, that I shall scarcely judge him com
parable, as to his apprehensions of God, unto many that lived and
died mere Pagans. To this sense also is applied that property of
•God, that he "trieth the hearts," as it is urged by Mr B. from 1 Thess.
ii. 4 ; — that is, he maketh inquiry after what is in them ; which, but
upon search and trial, he knoweth not ! By what ways and means
God accomplisheth this search, and whether hereupon he comes to
a perfect understanding of our hearts or no, is not expressed. John
tells us that " God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all
things;" and we have thought on that account (with that of such
farther discoveries as he hath made of himself and his perfections
unto us) that he had been said to search our hearts ; not that himself,
for his own information, needs any such formal process by way of
trial and inquiry, but because really and indeed he doth that in

1 " Contigerat nostras infamia temporis aures :
Quam cupiens falsam summo delabor Olympo,
Et Deus humana lustro sub imagine terras." — Oyid. Met. i. 211.

122 VINDICI^l EVANGELIC^.

himself which men aim at in the accomplishment of their most
diligent searches and exactest trials.

And we may, by the way, see a little of this man's consistency with
himself. Christ he denies to be God, — a great part of his religion
consists in that negative, — yet of Christ it is said that " he knew all
men, and needed not that any should testify of man, for he knew
what was in man," John ii. 24, 25 : and this is spoken in reference to
that very thing in the hearts of men which he would persuade us
that God knows not without inquiry; that is, upon the account of his
not committing himself to those as true believers whom yet, upon the
account of the profession they made, the Scripture calls so, and says
they "believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did,"
verse 23. Though they had such a veil of profession upon them that
the Holy Ghost would have us esteem them as believers, yet Christ
could look through it into their hearts, and discover and know their
frame, and whether in sincerity they loved him and believed in his
name or no ; but this God cannot do without inquiry ! And yet Christ
(if we believe Mr B.) was but a mere man, as he is a "mere Christian."
Farther; it seems, by this gentleman, that unless "we make known
our requests to God," he knows not what we will ask. Yet we ask
nothing but what is in our thoughts ; and in the last query he in
structs us that God knows our thoughts, — and doubtless he knows Mr
B.'s to be but folly. Farther yet ; if God must be concluded igno
rant of our desires, because we are bid to make our requests known
unto him, he may be as well concluded forgetful of what himself hath
spoken, because he bids us put him in remembrance, and appoints
some to be his remembrancers. But to return : —

This is the aspect of almost one-half of the places produced by Mr
B. towards the business in hand. If they are. properly spoken of
God, in the same sense as they are of man, they conclude him not
to know things present, the frame of the heart of any man in the
world towards himself and his fear, nay, the outward, open, notorious
actions of men. So it is in that place of Gen. xviii. 21, insisted on by
Crellius, one of Mr B/s great masters, "I will go down now, and see"
(or know) " whether they have done altogether according to the cry of
it, which is come unto me."1 Yea, the places which, in their letter
and outward appearance, seem to ascribe that ignorance of things
present unto God are far more express and numerous than those that
in the least look forward to what is yet for to come, or was so at

1 " Nimis longe a propria verborum significatione recedendum est, et sententiarum
vis enervanda, si eas cum definita ilia futiirorum contingentium proescientia conciliarc
veils, ut Gen. xviii. 21, xxii. 12. Quicquid enim alias de utriusque loci sententia
statuas. illud tamen facile est cernere, Deum novum quoddam, et insigne experimen-
tum, illic quidem impietatis Sodomiticse et Gomorrhsese, videre voluisse, hie vero
pietatis Abrahamicse vidisse, quod antequam fieret, plane certum et exploratum non
esset." — Crell. de Vera Eelig. cap. xxiv. p. 209.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 123

their delivery. This progress, then, have we made under our catechist,
if we may believe him, as he insinuates his notions concerning God :
" God sits in heaven (glistering on a throne), whereunto he is limited,
yea, to a certain place therein, so as not to be elsewhere ; being
grieved, troubled, and perplexed at the affairs done below which he
doth know, making inquiry after what he doth not know, and many
things (things future) he knoweth not at all."

Before I proceed to the farther consideration of that which is
eminently and expressly denied by Mr B., namely, " God's fore
knowledge of our free actions that are future," because many of his
proofs, in the sense by him urged, seem to exclude him from an ac
quaintance with many things present, — as, in particular, the frame and
condition of the hearts of men towards himself, as was observed, — it
may not be amiss a little to confirm that perfection of the knowledge
of God as to those things from the Scripture ; which will abundantly
also manifest that the expressions insisted on by our catechist are
metaphorical and improperly ascribed to God. Of the eminent pre
dictions in the Scripture, which relate unto things future, I shall
speak afterward. He knew, for he foretold the flood, the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, the famine in Egypt, the selling and exal
tation of Joseph, the reign of David, the division of his kingdom, the
Babylonish captivity, the kingdom of Cyrus, the return of his people,
the state and ruin of the four great empires of the world, the wars,
plagues, famines, earthquakes, divisions, which he manifestly foretold.
But farther, he knows the frame of the hearts of men ; he knew that
the Keilites would deliver up David to Saul if he stayed amongst
them, — which probably they knew not themselves, 1 Sam. xxiii. 12 ; he
knew that Hazael would murder women and infants, which he knew
not himself, 2 Kings viii. 12, 13; he knew that the Egyptians would
afflict his people, though at first they entertained them with honour,
Gen. xv. 13 ; he knew Abraham, that he would instruct his house
hold, chap, xviii. 19; he knew that some were obstinate, their neck
an iron sinew, and their brow brass, Isa. xlviii. 4 ; he knew the ima
gination or figment of the heart of his people, Deut. xxxi. 21 ; that the
church of Laodicea, notwithstanding her profession, was lukewarm,
neither cold nor hot, Rev. iii. 15. " Man looketh on the outward ap
pearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart," 1 Sam. xvi. 7. " He
only knoweth the hearts of all the children of men," 1 Kings viii. 39.
" Hell and destruction are before the LORD : how much more then the
hearts of the children of men?" Prov. xv. 11. So also Prov. xxiv. 12 ;
Jer. xvii. 9, 10; Ezek. xi. 5; Pa xxxviii. 9, xciv. 11; Job xxxi. 4;
Matt. vi. 4, 6, 8; Luke xvi. 15; Actsi. 24, etc. Innumerable other
places to this purpose may be insisted on, though it is a surprisal to
be put to prove that God knows the hearts of the sons of men. But
to proceed to that which is more directly under consideration : —

124 VINDICLaS EVANGELIC^.

The sole foundation of Mr B/s insinuation, that God knows not
our free actions that are future, being laid, as was observed, on the
assignation of fear, repentance, expectation, and conjecturing, unto
God, the consideration which hath already been had of those at
tributions in the Scripture and the causes of them is abundantly
sufficient to remove it out of the way, and to let his inference sink
thither whence it came. Doubtless never was painter so injurious to
the Deity (who limned out the shape of an old man on a cloth or
board, and, after some disputes with himself whether he should sell
it for an emblem of winter, set it out as a representation of God the
Father) as this man is in snatching God's own pencil out of his hand,
and by it presenting him to the world in a gross, carnal, deformed
shape. Plato would not suffer Homer in his Commonwealth, for
intrenching upon the imaginary blessedness of their dunghill deities,
making Jupiter to grieve for the death of Sarpedon,1 Mars to be
wounded by Diomedes, and to roar thereupon with disputes and
conjectures in heaven among themselves about the issue of the Trojan
war,3 though he endeavours to salve all his heavenly solecisms by
many noble expressions concerning purposes not unmeet for a deity,
telling us, in the close and issue of a most contingent aftair, A/oc ds
nXshro jSouXjj.3 Let that man think of how much sorer punishment
he shall be thought worthy (I speak of the great account he is one
day to make) who shall persist in wresting the Scripture to his own
destruction, to represent the living and incomprehensible God unto
the world trembling with fear, pale with anger, sordid with grief and
repentance, perplexed with conjectures and various expectations of
events, and making a diligent inquiry after the things he knows not ;
that is, altogether such an one as himself: let all who have the least
reverence of and acquaintance with that Majesty with whom we
have to do judge and determine. But of these things before.

The proposure of a question to succeed in the room of that remov
ed, with a scriptural resolution thereof, in order to a discovery of what
God himself hath revealed concerning his knowledge of all things, is
the next part of our employment. Thus, then, it may be framed : —

Ques. Doth not God know all things, whether past, present, or to

1 Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. n. ver. 431, etc. : —

Tati; Js t'Suv i/.'fr.tri Kpovotr va.7; KyxoKopnTlu.
"jJtiv St •rofitift ....

» Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. E. ver. 859, etc. : —

- i S" i£pa%t x<ilxi/>s "Aptis,
"Off fay r i*mti%iXt>t iwiee%ov, n SEX
'Avipif iv #o\ifttj> .... xafi^ire,
&i7%iv 5' ciftSfarar eitfia xarappiav
Ka/ p eXoipu ofitvotf x. <r. X.

'Horn. Iliad. Rhapsod. A. in princip.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 125

come, all the ways and actions of men, even before their accomplish
ment, or is any thing hid from him ? What says the Scripture
properly and directly hereunto ?

Ans. " God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things/'

1 John iii. 20. " Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in
his sight : but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him
with whom we have to do," Heb. iv. 13. "The LORD is a God of know
ledge/' 1 Sam. ii. 3. " Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up
rising, thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my
path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For
there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it
altogether," Ps. cxxxix. 2-4. "Great is our Lord, and of great power:
his understanding is infinite," Ps. cxlvii. 5. " Who hath directed the
Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? "With
whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in
the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to
him the way of understanding?" Isa. xl. 13, 14. " There is no search
ing of his understanding," verse 28. Rom. xi. 36, " Of him are all
things;" and, " Known unto God are all his works from the begin
ning of the world," Acts xv. 18, etc.

Of the undeniable evidence and conviction of God's prescience or
foreknowledge of future contingents, from his prediction of their
coming to pass, with other demonstrations of the truth under con
sideration, attended with their several testimonies from Scripture,
the close of this discourse will give a farther account.

It remains only that, according to the way and method formerly
insisted on, I give some farther account of the perfection of God
pleaded for, with the arguments wherewith it is farther evidenced
to us, and so to proceed to what followeth : —

1. That knowledge is proper to God, the testimony of the Scrip
ture unto the excellency and perfection of the thing itself doth suf
ficiently evince.1 " I cannot tell," says the apostle : "God knoweth,"

2 Cor. xii. 2, 3. It is the general voice of nature, upon relation of
any thing that to us is hid and unknown, that the apostle there
makes mention of : " God knoweth." That he knoweth the things
that are past, Mr B. doth not question. That at least also some
things that are present, yea some thoughts of our hearts, are known
to him, he doth not deny. It is not my intendment to engage in
any curious scholastical discourse about the understanding, science,

1 " Intellectio secundum se ejus est, quod secundum se optimum est." — Julius Petro-
nellus, lib. iii. cap. iv. ex Arist. Metaph. lib. xii. cap. vii. " Sed et intellectum duplicem
video ; alter enim intelligere potest, quamvis non intelligat, alter etiam intelligit
qui tamen nondum est perfectus, nisi et semper intelligat, et omnia ; et ille demum
absolutissimus futurus sit, qui et semper, et omnia, et simul intelligat." — Maxim.
Tyrius, dissert. 1.

" Uno mentis cernit in ictu
- .Quae sint, quse fuerint, veniantque." — Booth.

126 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

knowledge, or wisdom of God, nor of the way of God's knowing
things in and by his own essence, through simple intuition. That
which directly is opposed is his knowledge of our free actions, which,
in respect of their second and mediate causes, may or may not be.
This, therefore, I shall briefly explain, and confirm the truth of it
by Scripture testimonies and arguments from right reason, not to be
evaded without making head against all God's infinite perfections,
having already demonstrated that all that which is insisted on by
Mr B. to oppose it is spoken metaphorically and improperly of God.

That God doth foresee all future things was amongst mere Pagans
so acknowledged as to be looked on as a common notion of mankind.1
So Xenophon tells us, " That both Grecians and barbarians consented
in this, that the gods knew all things, present and to come." a And
it may be worth our observation, that whereas Crellius, one of the
most learned of this gentleman's masters, distinguished between
effofAtva and /ilXXovra, affirming that God knows ra efffatva, which,
though future, are necessarily so, yet he knows not ra. psXXovra,
which are only, says he, likely so to be.8 Xenophon plainly affirms
that all nations consent that he knows ra /AsXXoira. "And this know
ledge of his," saith that great philosopher, " is the foundation of the
prayers and supplications of men for the obtaining of good or the
avoiding of evil." Now, that one calling himself a " mere Christian"
should oppose a perfection of God that a mere Pagan affirms all the
world to acknowledge to be in him would seem somewhat strange,
but that we know all things do not answer or make good the names
whereby they are called.

For the clearer handling of the matter under consideration, the
terms wherein it is proposed are a little to be explained : —

1. That prescience or foreknowledge is attributed to God, the
Scripture testifieth. Acts ii. 23, Rom. viii. 29, xi. 2, 1 Pet. L 2, are

* T/ Si /

KaffopSy, S4i> eiSvffty, — JEschyL Supp. 1071, 2.
£ix.'ill at ftai 0 xct\i ;[£<.•» Qifftor, aVavaroy <rs tivxi xcci volTy vtiyrx, xal opxv, xau dxauuv,

xa.} ti'Stva/, va. ovra, xat TO. /KiXXavT* irtrlleti. — Hippoc. de Princip. To the same pur

pose is that of EjiicliarniUS, OiStv ix^ivyu TO &l~ay, a.lro; Iff it.ft.ay Ifoirrccs, etc. And

the anonymous author in Stobeeus (vid. Excerpta Stobaei, p. 117), speaking of God, adds,

"Ov ev$i if; X'tXr,(iv ayJ« 11 troiuv, oil)' 0,1 tr/iivfuv, ev^t ftToinxu; waXar o $t trapuv aira>ra%i>u,

v&ir i| avayxus «73«, etc. In short, the Pagans' generally received custom of consult
ing oracles, of using their eiavaffxa-iria, their auguria and auspicia, etc., by which they
expected answers from their gods, and significations of their will concerning future things,
are evident demonstrations that they believed their gods knew future contingents.

1 Ouxavt us /ttJ» Kaii "EXX»»lf *«/ fieifGapei rav; S-ttls tiyouira.! •teivrtt, itiitai, TO. n tttra xa.t
TO. p-iXXaira, iwS>jX«». Tleiftti yavi 0.1 •rclus KO.I •ff/itTit TO. tUtn S<« ftxvrtxr,; ivipuTuffi TOV;
Stov;, ri <ri xpYi xxi <ri ov %p)i vroitli. Ka} (triv on yep.i%efi.iv y\ $v>o,<r0at avrous xa.} tu xeci
xaxut irtitiiv, xeci nora tra$if. Harris y>ut atrouvrai revs Stoiis, ret pit 0au>.a a.farfi-rui,
Ta.ya.6it <n ta'oitti, Ourai roivuv el iroivrK p.\t titans, *• r. X. Ata 3i rt XfitiVua.i, xxi o n t%
txdfrau draGtitrtTtti, x. T. X.^Xenoph. 2TMIIO2. Cap. iv. 47.

* " Cum ergo Deus omnia prout reipsa se habent cognoscat, to-^iva seu certo futura
cognoscit ut talia, similiter et /tttXXovTa ut ^£XX«VT«, seu verisimiliter eventura, pro
ratione causarum uade pendent." — CrelL de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. p. 201.

OF GOD'S PKESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 127

proofs hereof. The term, indeed (foreknowing), rather relates to the
things known, and the order wherein they stand one to another and
among themselves, than is properly expressive of God's knowledge.
God knows all things as they are, and in that order wherein they
stand. Things that are past, as to the order of the creatures which
he hath appointed to them, and the works of providence which out-
Avardly are of him, he knows as past ; not by remembrance, as we do,
but by the same act of knowledge wherewith he knew them from all
eternity, even before they were.1 Their existence in time and being,
cast by the successive motion of things into the number of the things
that are past, denotes an alteration in them, but not at all in the
knowledge of God. So it is also in respect of things future. God
knows them in that esse intelligibile which they have, as they may
be known and understood ; and how that is shall afterward be
declared. He sees and knows them as they are, when they have
that respect upon them of being future ; when they lose this respect,
by their actual existence, he knows them still as before. They are
altered ; his knowledge, his understanding is infinite, and changeth
not.

2. God's knowledge of things is either of simple intelligence (as
usually it is phrased) or of vision!' The first is his knowledge of all
possible things ; that is, of all that he himself can do. That God
knows himself I suppose will not be denied. An infinite understand
ing knows throughly all infinite perfections. God, then, knows his own
power or omnipotency, and thereby knows all that he can do. Infinite
science must know, as I said, what infinite power can extend unto.
Now, whatever God can do is possible to be done ; that is, whatever
hath not in itself a repugnancy to being. Now, that many things
may be done by the power of God that yet are not, nor ever shall
be done, I suppose is not denied. Might he not make a new world ?
Hence ariseth the attribution of the knowledge of simple intelligence
before mentioned unto God. In his own infinite understanding he
sees and knows all things that are possible to be done by his power,
would his good pleasure concur to their production.

Of the world of things possible which God can do, some things,

1 " Sciendum, quod omnino aliter se habet antiqua vel seterna scientia ad ea quae fiunt
et facta sunt, et aliter recens scientia : esse namque rei entis est causa scientiae nostrse,
scientia vero seterna est causa ut ipsa res sit. Si vero quando res est postquam non
erat, contingeret noviter in ipsa scientia antiqua, scientia superaddita, quemadmodum
contingit hoc in scientia nova, sequeretur utique quod ipsa scientia antiqua esset
causata ab ipso ente : et non esset causa ipsius, oportet ergo quod non contingat ib>
mutatio, scilicet in antiqua scientia, quemadmodum contingit in nova : sciendum
autem, quod hie error idcirco accidit, quia scientia antiqua mensuratur ab imperitis
cum scientia nova, cujus mensurationis modus vitiosissimus est : projicit quippe
quandoque hominem in barathrum, undo nunquam est egressurus." — Rab. Aben. Host.
Interpret. Raymund. Martin. Pugi. Fidei. P. P., cap. xxv. sect. 4, 5, p. 201.

2 " In Deo simplex est intuitus, quo simpliciter videntur quae composita sunt, inva-
riabiliter quae variabilia sunt, et siinul quae successiva."

128 VINDICI.E EVANGELICLE.

even all that he pleaseth, are future* The creation itself, and all
things that have had a being since, were so future before their
creation. Had they not some time been future, they had never
been. Whatever is, was to be before it was. All things that shall
be to the end of the world are now future. How things which were
only possible, in relation to the power of God, come to be future, and
in what respect, shall be briefly mentioned. These things God
knoweth also. His science of them is called of vision. He sees
them as things which, in their proper order, shall exist. In a word,
" scientia visionis," and "simplicis intelligentise," may be considered
in a threefold relation ; that is, "in ordine ad objectum, mensuram,
modum:" — (1.) " Scientia visionis" hath for its object things past,
present, and to come, — whatsoever had, hath, or will have, actual
being. The measure of this knowledge is his will ; because the will
and decree of God only make those things future which were but pos
sible before : therefore we say, " Scientia visionis fundatur in volun-
tate." For the manner of it, it is called " Scientia libera, quia funda
tur in voluntate," as necessarily presupposing a free act of the divine
will, which makes things future, and so objects of this kind of
knowledge. (2.) As for that " scientia " which we call " simplicis
intelligentise," the object of it is possible; the measure of it omnipo-
tency, for by it he knows all he can do ; and for the manner of it,
it is " scientia necessaria, quia non fundatur in voluntate, sed potes-
tate " (say the schoolmen), seeing by it he knows not what he will,
but what he can do. Of that late figment of a middle science in
God, arising neither from the infinite perfection of his own being,
as that of simple intelligence, nor yet attending his free purpose and
decree, as that of vision, but from a consideration of the second
causes that are to produce the things foreknown, in their kind,
order, and dependence, I am not now to treat. And with the for
mer kind of knowledge it is, or rather in the former way (the know
ledge of God being simply one and the same) is it, that we affirm
him to know the things that are future, of what sort soever, or all
things before they come to pass.

3. The things inquired after are commonly called contingent.
Contingencies are of two sorts : — (1.) Such as are only so ; (2.)
Such as are also free.

(1.) Such as are only so are contingent only in their effects: such
is the falling of a stone from a house, and the killing of a man thereby.
The effect itself was contingent, nothing more ; the cause necessary,
the stone, being loosed from what detained it upon the house, by its
own weight necessarily falling to the ground. (2.) That which is so
contingent as to be also free, is contingent both in respect of the

1 "Ad hanc legem animus noster aptandus est, hanc sequatur, huic parcat, et quse-
cunque fiunt, dcbuisse fieri putet." — Senec. Ep. 108.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. ] 29

effect and of its causes also. Such was the soldier's piercing of the
side of Christ. The effect was contingent, — such a thing might have
been done or not ; and the cause also, for they chose to do it who
did it, and in respect of their own elective faculty might not have
chosen it. That a man shall write, or ride, or speak to another per
son to-morrow, the agent being free, is contingent both as to the cause
and to the effect. About these is our principal inquiry; and to the
knowledge of God which he is said to have of them is the opposition
most expressly made by Mr B. Let this, then, be our conclusion: —

God perfectly knows all the free actions of men before they are
wrought by them.1 All things that will be done or shall be to all
eternity, though in their own natures contingent and wrought by
agents free in their working, are known to him from eternity.

Some previous observations will make way for the clear proof and
demonstration of this truth. Then, —

1. God certainly knows everything that is to be known ; that is,
everything that is scibile. If there be in the nature of things an
impossibility to be known, they cannot be known by the divine
understanding. If any thing be scibile, or may be known, the not
knowing of it is his imperfection who knows it not. To God this
cannot be ascribed (namely, that he should not know what is to be
known) without the destruction of his perfection. He shall not be
my God who is not infinitely perfect. He who wants any thing to
make him blessed in himself can never make the fruition of himself
the blessedness of others.

2. Every thing that hath a determinate cause is scibile, may be
known, though future, by him that perfectly knows that cause which
doth so determine the thing to be known unto existence. Now, con
tingent things, the free actions of men that yet are not, but in respect
of themselves may or may not be, have such a determinate cause
of their existence as that mentioned. It is true, in respect of their
immediate causes, as the wills of men, they are contingent, and may
be or not be ; but that they have such a cause as before spoken of is
evident from the light of this consideration : in their own time and
order they are. Now, whatever is at any time was future ; before
it was, it was to be. If it had not been future, it had not now been.
Its present performance is sufficient demonstration of the futurition
it had before. I ask, then, whence it came to be future, — that that
action was rather to be than a thousand others that were as possible
as it ? for instance, that the side of Christ should be pierced with

i " Dixit R. Juchanan : Omnia videntur uno intuitu. Dixit Rab. Nachman filius
Isaac! : Sic etiam nos didicimus; quod scriptum est Ps. xxxiii. 15, Formans simul
cor eorum, inteUigens omnia opera eorum : quomodo intelligendum est ? Dicendum est,
dici, Deuni adunare simul corda totius mundi ? Ecce, videmus non ita rem se habere :
sed sic dicendum est, Formans sive Creator videt simul cor eorum, et intelliget omnia
opera eorum." — Talmud. Rosch. Haschana : interpret. Joseph, de Voysin.

VOL. XII. 9

ISO VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

a spear, when it was as possible, in the nature of the thing itself and
of all secondary causes, that his head should be cut off. That, then,
which gives any action a futuritiou is that determinate cause
wherein it may be known, whereof we speak. Thus it may be said
of the same thing that it is contingent and determined, without the
least appearance of contradiction, because it is not spoken with re
spect to the same things or causes.

3. The determinate cause of contingent things, that is, things that
are future (for every thing when it is, and as it is, is necessary),1 is
the will of God himself concerning their existence and being ; either
by his efficiency and working, as all good things in every kind (that
is, that are either morally or physically so, in which latter sense all
the actions of men, as actions, are so) ; or by his permission, which is
the condition of things morally evil, or of the irregularity and obli
quity attending those actions, upon the account of their relation to a
law, which in themselves are entitative and physically good, as the
things were which God at first created.3 Whether any thing come
to pass beside the will of God and contrary to his purpose will not
be disputed with any advantage of glory to God or honour to them
that shall assert it.3 That in all events the will of God is fulfilled
is a common notion of all rational creatures. So the accomplish
ment of his "determinate counsel" is affirmed by the apostle in the
issue of that mysterious dispensation of the crucifying of his Son.
That of James iv. 15, 'Edv 6 Kupios Stuffy, intimates God's will to be
extended to all actions, as actions, whatever. Thus God knew be
fore the world was made, or any thing that is in it, that there would
be such a world and such things in it ; yet than the making of the
world nothing was more free or contingent.4 God is not a necessary
agent as to any of the works that outwardly are of him. Whence,
then, did God know this ? Was it not from his own decree and
eternal purpose that such a world there should be ? And if the
knowledge of one contingent thing be from hence, why not of all ?
In brief, these future contingencies depend on something for their
existence, or they come forth into the world in their own strength
and upon their own account, not depending on any other. If the
latter, they are God ; if the former, the will of God or old Fortune
must be the principle on which they do depend.

1 " Quicquid enim est, dum est, necessario est." — Aquinas 1. part, quaest. 19, art. 3.

1 Vide Scot, in 1 lib. Sent. dist. 39, quaest. unica ; Durand ibid. dist. 38, quaest. 3;
Jo. Major in 1, dist. 38, 39, quaest. 1, art. 4; Alvarez deAuxiliis. lib. ii. disput. 10, p.
65, etc. ; et Scholasticos in Lombardum ibid. dist. 38, 39 ; quos fuse enumerat Job.
Martines de Ripalda in 1 Sent. p. 127 et 131.

' " Quid mihi scire quae futura sunt ? Quaecunque ille vult, haec futura sunt." —
Origen. Horn. 6, in Jesum Nave. Vid. Freder. Spanhemium Dub. Evang. 33, p. 272,
in illud Matth. " Totum hoc factum est, "»a •x-z.vput)* TO fatit v#o mv Kvfiou." Paul. Fer-
rium Scbol. Orthodox!, cap. xxxi. ; et in Vindiciis. cap. v. sect. 6.

4 Vide Aquinat. 1, queest. 83, art. 1, ad 3.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 131

4. God can work with contingent causes for the accomplishment
of his own will and purposes, without the least prejudice to them,
either as causes or as free and contingent. God moves not, works
not, in or with any second causes, to the producing of any effect
contrary or not agreeable to their own natures. Notwithstanding
any predetermination or operation of God, the wills of men, in the
production of every one of their actions, are at as perfect liberty as
a cause in dependence of another is capable of. To say it is not in
dependence is atheism. The purpose of God, the counsel of his
will, concerning any thing as to its existence, gives a necessity of in
fallibility to the event, but changes not the manner of the second
cause's operation, be [it] what it will.1 That God cannot accomplish
and bring about his own purposes by free and contingent agents,
without the destruction of the natures he hath endued them withal,
is a figment unworthy the thoughts of any who indeed acknowledge
his sovereignty and power.

5. The reason why Mr B/s companions in his undertaking, as
others that went before him of the same mind, do deny this fore
knowledge of God, they express on all occasions to be that the
granting of it is prejudicial to that absolutely independent liberty of
will which God assigns to men : so Socinus pleads, Praslect. Theol.
cap. viii. ; thus far, I confess, more accurately than the Arminians. 3
These pretend (some of them, at least) to grant the prescience of God,
but yet deny his determinate decrees and purposes, on the same pre
tence that the others do his prescience, namely, of their prejudicial-
ness to the free-will of man. Socinus discourses (which was no
difficult task) that the foreknowledge of God is as inconsistent with
that independent liberty of will and contingency which he and they
had fancied as the predetermination of his will; and therefore rejects
the former as well as the latter. It was Augustine's complaint of
old concerning Cicero, that " ita fecit homines liberos, ut fecit etiarn.
sacrileges."3 Cicero was a mere Pagan, and surely our complaint

1 Vide Didac. Alvarez, de Auxiliis Gratise, lib. iii. disput. 25, Aquinat. part. 2,
qujBst. 112, art. 3, E. 1. Part, qusest. 19, art. 8, ad 3.

3 Crell. de Vera Relig. lib. i. cap. xxiv. Smalc. ad Franz, disput. 12.

8 " In has angustias Cicero coarctat animum religiosum, ut unum eligat e duobus,
— aut esse aliquid in nostra voluntate, aut esse prsescientiam futurorum : quoniam
utrumque arbitratur esse non posse, sed si alterum confirmatur, alterum tolli : si
elegerimus prsescientiam futurorum, tolli voluntatis arbitrium : si elegerimus volun-
tatis arbitrium, tolli prsescientiam futurorum. Ipse itaque ut vir magnus et doctus,
et vitse humanse plurimum et peritissime consulens, ex his duobus elegit liberum vo
luntatis arbitrium. Quod ut confirmaretur, negavit prsescientiam futurorum, atquo
ita dum vult facere liberos, facit sacrileges. Religiosus autem animus utrumque eligit,
utrumque confitetur, et fide pietatis utrumque confirmat. Quomodo inquit : Nam si
est prsescientia futurorum, sequuntur ilia omnia, quse connexa sunt, donee eo perveni-
atur, ut nihil sit in nostra voluntate. Porro, si est aliquid in nostra voluntate, eisdem
recursis gradibus eo pervenitur, ut non sit prsescientia futurorum. Nam per ilia omnia
sic recurritur. Si est voluntatis arbitrium, non omnia fato fiunt. Si non omnia fato
fiunt, non est omnium certua ordo causarum. Si certus causarum ordo non est : neo

132 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

against any that shall close with him in this attempt, under the
name of a "mere Christian," will not be less just than that of Augus
tine. For mine own part, I am fully resolved that all the liberty
and freedom that, as creatures, we are capable of is eminently con
sistent with God's absolute decrees and infallible foreknowledge;
and if I should hesitate in the apprehension thereof, I had rather
ten thousand times deny our wills to be free than God to be omni
scient, the sovereign disposer of all men, their actions, and concern
ments, or say that any thing comes to pass without, against, or con
trary to the counsel of his will. But we know, through the good
ness of God, that these things have their consistency, and that God
may have preserved to him the glory of his infinite perfection, and
the will of man not at all be abridged of its due and proper liberty.

These things being premised, the proof and demonstration of the
truth proposed lies ready at hand in the ensuing particulars : —

1. He who knows all things knows the things that are future,
though contingent.1 In saying they are things future and contingent,
you grant them to be among the number of things, as you do those
which you call things past ; but that God knows all things hath
already been abundantly confirmed out of Scripture. Let the reader
look back on some of the many texts and places by which T gave
answer to the query about the foreknowledge of God, and he will
find abundantly enough for his satisfaction, if he be of those that
would be satisfied, and dares not carelessly make bold to trample
upon the perfections of God. Take some few of them to a review :
1 John iii. 20, " God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all
things." Even we know things past and present. If God knows
only things of the same kind, his knowledge may be greater than
ours by many degrees, but you cannot say his understanding is in
finite ; there is not, on that supposition, an infinite distance between
his knowledge and ours, but they stand in some measurable propor
tion. Heb. iv. 13, "All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of
him with whom we have to do." "Not that which is to come, not the
free actions of men that are future," saith Mr B. But to distinguish
thus when the Scripture doth not distinguish, and that to the great
dishonour of God, is not to interpret the word, but to deny it. Acts

remm certus est ordo praescienti Deo, quaB fieri non possunt nisi prsecedentibus, et
efficientibus causis. Si rerum ordo praescienti Deo certus non est, non omnia sic veni-
unt, ut ea ventura praescivit. Porro, si non omnia sic eveniunt ut ab illo eventura
praescita sunt, non est, inquit in Deo praescientia futurorum. Nos adversus istos
sacrileges ausus, et hnpios, et Deum dicimus omnia scirc antequam fiant ; et voluntate
nos facere, quicquid a nobis non nisi volentibus fieri sentimus et novimus." — August,
de Civit. Dei, lib. v. cap. ix.

. l " Causam quare Deus futura contingentia prsesciat damus hanc, quod sit infinita
ipsius intellectus perfectio omnia cognoscentis. Et sicut Deus cognoscit praeterita
fsecundum esse quod habuerunt, ita etiam cognoscit futura secundum illud esse quod
Wbitura sunt."— Dan. Clasen. Theol. Natural, cap. xxii. p. 128.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. IBB

xv. 18, " Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of
the world." I ask, whether God hath any thing to do in the free
actions of men ? For instance, had he any thing to do in the send
ing of Joseph into Egypt, his exaltation there, and the entertainment
of his father's household afterward by him in his greatness and
power ? all which were brought about by innumerable contingencies
and free actions of men. If he had not, why should we any longer
depend on him, or regard him in the several transactions and con
cernments of our lives ?

" N\illum numen abest,1 si sit prudentia : nos te,
Nos facimus, Fortuna, Deam."

If he had to do with it, as Joseph thought he had, when he affirmed
plainly that " God sent him thither, and made him a father to Pha
raoh and his house," Gen. xlv. 5-8, then the whole was known to God
before, for " Known unto God are all his works from the beginning
of the world." And if God may know any one free action before
hand, he may know all, for there is the same reason of them all.
Their contingency is given as the only cause why they may not be
known. Now, every action that is contingent is equally interested
therein. " A quatenus ad omne valet argumentum." That place of
the psalm before recited, Ps. cxxxix. 2-6, is express as to the know
ledge of God concerning our free actions that are yet future. If any
thing in the world may be reckoned amongst our free actions, surely
our thoughts may ; and such a close reserved treasure are they that
Mr B. doth more than insinuate, in the application of the texts of
Scripture which he mention eth, that God knoweth them not when
present without search and inquiry. But these, saith the psalmist,
"God knoweth afar off," — before we think them, before they enter into
our hearts. And truly I marvel that any man, not wholly given up
to a spirit of giddiness, after he had produced this text of Scripture
to prove that God knows our thoughts, should instantly subjoin a
question leading men to a persuasion that God knows not our free
actions that are future ; unless it was with a Julian design, to im
pair the credit of the word of God, by pretending it liable to self-
contradiction, or, with Lucian, to deride God as bearing contrary
testimonies concerning himself.

2. God hath, by himself and his holy prophets, which have been
from the foundation of the world, foretold many of the free actions
of men, what they would do, what they should do, long before they
were born who were to do them.2 To give a -little light to this ar
gument, which of itself will easily overwhelm all that stands before it,

1 Some read " babes." See Juv. Sat. x. 365. — ED.

* " Pnescientia Dei tot habet testes, quot fecit prophetas." — TertuL lib. ii. contra
Marcionem.

134, VINDICLE EVANGELIC J2.

I shall handle it under these propositions : — (1.) That God hath so
foretold the free actions of men. (2.) That so he could not do unless
he knew them, and that they would be, then when he foretold them.
(3.) That he proves himself to be God by these his predictions. (4.)
That he foretells them as the means of executing many of his judg
ments which he hath purposed and threatened, and the accomplish
ment of many mercies which he hath promised, so that the denial of
his foresight of them so exempts them from under his providence
as to infer that he rules not in the world by punishments and rewards.

For the first: — (1.) There needs no great search or inquiry after
witnesses to confirm the truth of it ; the Scripture is full of such pre
dictions from one end to the other. Some few instances shall suffice :
Gen. xviii. 18, 19, " Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great
and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed
in him ; for I know him, that he will command his children and his
household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do
justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that
which he hath spoken of him." Scarce a word but is expressive of
some future contingent thing, if the free actions of men be so before
they are wrought. That " Abraham should become a mighty na
tion," that " all the nations of the earth should be blessed in him,"
that he would "command his children and his household after him
to keep the ways of the LORD," it was all to be brought about by
the free actions of Abraham and of others; and all this " I know,"
saith the Lord, and accordingly declares it. By the way, if the
Lord knew all this before, his following trial of Abraham was not to
satisfy himself whether he feared him or no, as is pretended.

So also Gen. xv. 13, 14, " And he said unto Abram, Know of a
surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,
and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and after
ward shall they come out with great substance." The Egyptians'
affliction on the Israelites was by their free actions, if any be free.
It was their sin to do it ; they sinned in all that they did for the
effecting of it. And, doubtless, if any men's sinful actions are free,
yet doth God here foretell " They shall afflict them."

Deut. xxxi. 16-18, you have an instance beyond all possible ex
ception: " And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep
with thy fathers ; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after
the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among
them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have
made with them. Then my anger shall be kindled against them in
that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them,
and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall
them ; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 135

us, because our God is not among us?" etc. The sum of a good part
of what is recorded in the Book of Judges is here foretold by God.
The people's going a whoring after the gods of the strangers of
the land, their forsaking of God, their breaking his covenant, the
thoughts of their hearts and their expressions upon the consideration
of the evils and afflictions that should befall them, were of their free
actions; but now all these doth God here foretell, and thereby engages
the honour of his truth unto the certainty of their coming to pass.

1 Kings xiii. 2 is signal to the same purpose : " 0 altar, altar,
behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by
name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places
that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon
thee." This prediction is given out three hundred years before the
birth of Josiah. The accomplishment of it you have in the story,
2 Kings xxiii. 17. Did Josiah act freely? was his proceeding at
Bethel by free actions, or no ? If not, how shall we know what
actions of men are free, what not ? If it was, his free actions are
here foretold, and therefore, I think, foreseen.

1 Kings xx ii. 28, the prophet Micaiah, in the name of the Lord,
having foretold a thing that was contingent, and which was accom
plished by a man acting at a venture, lays the credit of his prophecy
(and therein his life, for if he had proved false as to the event he
was to have suffered death by the law) at stake, before all the people,
upon the certainty of the issue foretold : " And Micaiah said, If thou
return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me. And he
said, Hearken, O people, every one of you."

Of these predictions the Scripture is full. The prophecies of Cyrus
in Isaiah, of the issue of the Babylonish war and kingdom of Judah in
Jeremiah, of the several great alterations and changes in the empires of
the world in Daniel, of the kingdom of Christ in them all, are too long
to be insisted on. The reader may also consult Matt. xxiv. 5 ; Mark
xiii. 6, xiv. '30 ; Acts xx. 29 ; 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4, etc. ; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 1 ; 2 Pet ii. 1 ; and the Revelation almost throughout. Our first
proposition, then, is undeniably evident, That God, by himself and by
his prophets, hath foretold things future, even the free actions of men.

(2.) The second proposition mentioned is manifest and evident in
its own light : What God foretelleth, that he perfectly foreknows.
The honour and repute of his veracity and truth, yea, of his being,
depend on the certain accomplishment of what he absolutely fore
tells. If his predictions of things future are not bottomed on his
certain prescience of them, they are all but like Satan's oracles, con
jectures and guesses of what may be accomplished or not, — a sup
position whereof is as high a pitch of blasphemy as any creature in
this world can possibly arrive unto.

(3.) By this prerogative of certain predictions in reference to

J 36 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

things to come, God vindicates his own deity ; and from the want of
it evinces the vanity of the idols of the Gentiles, and the falseness
of the prophets that pretend to speak in his name: Isa. xli. 21-24,
" Produce your cause, saith the LOED ; bring forth your strong rea
sons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and show
us what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they
be; or declare us things for to coma Show the things that are to
come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods. Behold, ye are
of nothing." The Lord calling forth the idols of the Gentiles, devils,
stocks, and stones, to plead for themselves, before the denunciation,
of the solemn sentence ensuing, verse 24, he puts them to the plea
of foreknowledge for the proof of their deity. If they can foretell
things to come certainly and infallibly, on the account of their own
knowledge of them, gods they are, and gods they shall be esteemed.
If not, saith he, " Ye are nothing, worse than nothing, and your
work of nought ; an abomination is he that chooseth you." And
it may particularly be remarked, that the idols of whom he speak-
eth are in especial those of the Chaldeans, whose worshippers pre
tended above all men in the world to divination and predictions.
Now, this issue doth the Lord drive things to betwixt himself and
the idols of the world : If they can foretell things to come, that is,
not this or that thing (for so, by conjecture, upon consideration of
second causes and the general dispositions of things, they may do,
and the devil hath done), but any thing or every thing, they shall go
free; that is, " Is there nothing hid from you that is yet for to be?"
Being not able to stand before this interrogation, they perish before
the judgment mentioned. But now, if it may be replied to the
living God himself that this is a most unequal way of proceeding,
to lay that burden upon the shoulders of others which himself will
not bear, bring others to that trial which himself cannot undergo,
for he himself cannot foretell the free actions of men, because he doth
not foreknow them, would not his plea render him like to the idols
whom he adjudgeth to shame and confusion? God himself there,
concluding that they are "vanity and nothing " who are pretended to
be gods but are not able to foretell the things that are for to come,
asserts his own deity, upon the account of his infinite understanding
and knowledge of all things, on the account whereof he can fore
show all things whatever that are as yet future. In like manner
doth he proceed to evince what is from himself, what not, in the
predictions of any, from the certainty of the event: Deut. xviii.
21, 22, " If thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word
which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is
the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath
spoken it presumptuously : thou shalt not be afraid of him."

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 137

(4.) The fourth proposition, That God by the free actions of men
(some whereof he foretelleth) doth fulfil his own counsel as to judg
ments and mercies, rewards and punishments, needs no farther proof
or confirmation but what will arise from a mere review of the things
before mentioned, by God so foretold, as was to be proved. They
were things of the greatest import in the world, as to the good or
evil of the inhabitants thereof, and in whose accomplishment as
much of the wisdom, power, righteousness, and mercy of God was
manifest, as in any of the works of his providence whatever. Those
things which he hath [so] disposed of as to be subservient to so great
ends, certainly he knew that they would be. The selling of Joseph,
the crucifying of his Son, the destruction of antichrist, are things of
greater concernment than that God should only conjecture at their
event. And, indeed, the taking away of God's foreknowledge of
things contingent renders his providence useless as to the govern
ment of the world. To what end should any rely upon him, seek
unto him, commit themselves to his care through the course of their
lives, when he knows not what will or may befall them the next
day? How shall he judge or rule the world who every moment is
surprised with new emergencies which he foresaw not, which must
necessitate him to new counsels and determinations? On the con
sideration of this argument doth Episcopius conclude for the pre
science of God, Ep. ii., " ad Beverovicium de termino vitse,"1 which
he had allowed to be questioned in his private Theological Dispu
tations,3 though in his public afterward he pleads for it. The sum
of the argument insisted on amounts to this : —

Those things which God foretells that they shall certainly and in
fallibly come to pass before they so do, those he certainly and infal
libly knoweth whilst they are future, and that they will come to pass;
but God foretells, and hath foretold, all manner of future contin
gencies and free actions of men, good and evil, duties and sins : there
fore he certainly and infallibly knows them whilst they are yet future.

The proposition stands or falls unto the honour of God's truth,
veracity, and power.

The assumption is proved by the former and sundry other instances
that may be given.

He foretold that the Egyptians should afflict his people four hun-

1 " Speciem et pondus videtur habere hsec objectio; nee pauci sunt, qui ejus vi adeo
moventur, ut divinam futurorum contingentium praescientiam negare, et quoe pro ea
facere videntur loca, atque argumenta, magno conatu torquere malint, et flectere in
sensus, non minus periculouos quam difficiles. Ad me quod attinet, ego hactenus sive
religione quadam ani mi, sive divinae majestatis reverentia, non potui prorsus in animum
meum inducere, rationem istam allegatam tanti esse, ut propter earn Deo futurorum
contingentium prsescientia detrahenda sit; maxime cum vix videam, quomodo alioquin
divinarum prsedictionum veritas salvari possit, sine aliqua aut incertitudinis macula,
aut falsi possibilis suspicione." — Sim. Episcop. Respons. ad 2 Ep. Johan. Beverovic.

* Episcop. Instit. Thcol. lib. iv. cap. xvii. xviii. ; Episcop. Disput. de Deo, thes. 10.

138 VINDICI^: EVANGELIOE.

dred years, that in so doing they would sin, and that for it he would
punish them, Gen. xv. 13, 14; and surely the Egyptians' sinning
therein was their own free action. The incredulity of the Jews,
treachery of Judas, calling of the Gentiles, all that happened to
Christ in the days of his flesh, the coming of antichrist, the rise of
false teachers, were all foretold, and did all of them purely depend
on the free actions of men ; which was to be demonstrated.

3. To omit many other arguments, and to close this discourse:
all perfections are to be ascribed to God ; they are all in him. To
know is an excellency; he that knows any thing is therein better
than he that knows it not. The more any one knows, the more ex
cellent is he. To know all things is an absolute perfection in the
good of knowledge ; to know them in and by himself who so knows
them, and not from any discourses made to him from without, is an
absolute perfection in itself, and is required where there is infinite wis
dom and understanding. This we ascribe to God, as worthy of him,
and as by himself ascribed to himself. To affirm, on the other side,
— (1.) That God hath his knowledge from things without him, and
so is taught wisdom and understanding, as we are, from the event of
things, for the more any one knows the wiser he is ; (2.) That he
hath, as we have, a successive knowledge of things, knowing that
one day which he knew not another, and that thereupon there is, —
(3.) A daily and hourly change and alteration in him, as, from the
increasing of his knowledge there must actually and formally be;
and, (4.) That he sits conjecturing at events; — to assert, I say, these
and the like monstrous figments concerning God and his knowledge,
is, as much as in them lieth who so assert them, to shut his provi
dence out of the world, and to divest him of all his blessedness, self-
sufficiency, and infinite perfections. And, indeed, if Mr B. believe his
own principles, and would speak out, he must assert these things,
how desperate soever; for having granted the premises, it is stupidity
to stick at the conclusion. And therefore some of those whom Mr
B. is pleased to follow in these wild vagaries speak out, • and say
(though with as much blasphemy as confidence) that God doth only
conjecture and guess at future contingents; for when this argument
is brought, Gen. xviii. 19, " ' I know/ saith God, 'Abraham, that he
will command his children and his household after him/ etc., there
fore future contingents may be certainly known of him," they deny
the consequence ; or, granting that he may be said to know them,
yet say it is only by guess and conjecture, as we do.1 And for the
present vindication of the attributes of God this may suffice.

1 Anonynras adv. cap. priora Matth., p. 28. "Nego consequential! : Dens dicere
potuit se scire quid facturus erat Abraham, etsi id certo non pnenoverit, sed probabi-
liter. Inducitur enim Deus ssepius humano more loquens. Solent autem homines
affirmare se scire ea futura, quse verisimiliter futura sunt," etc.

OF GOD'S PRESCIENCE OR FOREKNOWLEDGE. 139

Before I close this discourse, it may not be impertinent to divert
a little to that which alone seems to be of any difficulty lying in our
way in the assertion of this prescience of God, though no occasion of
its consideration be administered to us by him with whom we have
to do.

" That future contingents have not in themselves a determinate
truth, and therefore cannot be determinately known/' is the great
plea of those who oppose God's certain foreknowledge of them; "and
therefore," say they, "doth the philosopher affirm that propositions
concerning them are neither true nor false."1 But, —

1. That there is, or may be, that there hath been, a certain predic
tion of future contingents hath been demonstrated ; and therefore
they must on some account or other (and what that account is hath
been declared) have a determinate truth. And I had much rather
conclude that there are certain predictions of future contingents in
the Scripture, and therefore they have a determinate truth, than, on
the contrary, they have no determinate truth, therefore there are no
certain predictions of them. " Let God be true, and every man a liar."

2. As to the falsity of that pretended axiom, this proposition,
" Such a soldier shall pierce the side of Christ with a spear, or he
shall not pierce him," is determinately true and necessary on the one
side or the other, the parts of it being contradictory, which cannot
lie together. Therefore, if a man before the flood had used this pro
position in the affirmative, it had been certainly and determinately
true ; for that proposition which was once not true cannot be true
afterward upon the same account.

3. If no affirmative proposition about future contingents be de
terminately true, then every such affirmative proposition is determi
nately false; for from hence, that a thing is or is not, is a proposition
determinately true or false.2 And therefore if any one shall say
that that is determinately future which is absolutely indifferent, his
affirmation is false ; which is contrary to Aristotle, whom in this they
rely upon, who affirms that such propositions are neither true nor
false. The truth is, of propositions that they are true or false is cer
tain. Truth or falseness are their proper and necessary affections, as
even and odd of numbers; nor can any proposition be given where
in there is a contradiction, whereof one part is true and the other
false.

4. This proposition, " Petrus orat," is determinately true de pras-
senti, when Peter doth actually pray (for " quicquid est, dum est,
determinate est") ; therefore this proposition de futuro, " Petrus
orabit," is determinately true. The former is the measure and rule

1 Arist. lib. i. de Interp. cap. viii.

2 Alphons. de Mendoza. Con. Theol. Scholast. q. 1, p. 534 ; Vasquez. in 1 Tho. disp. 16 ;
Ruvio in 1, Interpret, cap. vi. q. unica, etc.

140 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^E.

by which we judge of the latter. So that because it is true de
presenti, "Petrus orat;" ergo this, de future, " Petrus orabit," was
ab aeterno true (ex parte rei). And then (ex parte modi) because
this proposition, "Petrus orat/' is determinately true de prsesenti;
ergo this, " Petrus orabit," was determinately true from all eternity.1
But enough of this.

Mr B. having made a sad complaint of the ignorance and darkness
that men were bred up in by being led from the Scripture, and im
posing himself upon them for " a guide of the blind, a light of them
which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and a teacher of
babes," doth, in pursuit of his great undertaking, in this chapter
instruct them what the Scripture speaks concerning the being, na-
tiiire, and properties of God. Of his goodness, wisdom, power, truth,
righteousness, faithfulness, mercy, independency, sovereignty, infinite-
ness, men had before been informed by books, tracts, and catechisms,
" composed according to the fancies and interests of men, the Scrip
ture being utterly justled out of the way." Alas ! of these things the
Scripture speaks not at all ; but the description wherein that abounds
of God, and which is necessary that men should know (whatever be
come of those other inconsiderable things wherewith other poor cate
chisms are stuffed), is, that he is finite, limited, and obnoxious to
passions, etc. " Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacri
lege?"

CHAPTER VI.

Of the creation, and condition of man before and after the fall.

MR BIDDLE'S THIRD CHAPTER.

Ques. Were the heaven and earth from all eternity, or created at a certain
time? and by whom?

Ans. Gen. i. 1.

Q. How long was God a making tJiem 9

A. Exod. xx. 11.

Q. How did God create man ?

A. Gen. ii. 7.

Q. How did he create woman?

A. Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Q. Why was she called woman 9

A. Gen. ii. 23.

Q. What doth Moses infer from her being made a woman, and brought unto
the man ?

A. Gen. ii. 24.

Q. Where did God put man after he was created?

A. Gen. ii. 8.

1 Vid. Rod. de Arriaga. disp. Log. xiv. sect. 5, subsect. 8, p. 205 ; Suarez. in Opus.
lib. i. de Praescientia Dei, cap. ii. ; Vasquez. 1, Part. disp. 66, cap. ii. ; Pet. Hurtado de
Mend. disp. 9, de Anima. sect. 6.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFOEE AND AFTER THE FALL. 1 41

Q. What commandment gave he to the man when he put him into the garden f

A. Gen. ii. 16, 17.

Q. Was the man deceived to eat of the forbidden fruit ?

A. 1 Tim. ii. 14.

Q. By whom was the woman deceived?

A. 2 Cor. xi. 3.

Q. How was the woman induced to eat of theforbidden fruit? and how the manf

A. Gen. iii. 6.

Q. What e/ect followed upon their eating?

A. Gen. iii. 7.

Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit bring both
upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire, deface the image of God in
them, darken their understanding, enslave their will, deprive them of power to do
good, and cause mortality ? If not, what are the true penalties that God denounced
against them for the said offence?

A. Gen. iii. 16-19.

EXAMINATION.

Having delivered his thoughts concerning God himself, his nature
and properties, in the foregoing chapters, in this our catechist pro
ceeds to the consideration of his works, ascribing to God the creation
of all things, especially insisting on the making of man. Now,
although many questions might be proposed from which Mr B.
would, I suppose, be scarcely able to extricate himself, relating to the
impossibility of the proceeding of such a work as the creation of all
things from such an agent as he hath described God to be, so limited
both in his essence and properties, yet it being no part of my busi
ness to dispute or perplex any thing that is simply in itself true and
unquestionable, with the attendancies of it from other corrupt notions
of him or them by whom it is received and proposed, I shall wholly
omit all considerations of that nature, and apply myself merely to
what is by him expressed. That he who is limited and finite in
essence, and consequently in properties, should by his power, without
the help of any intervening instrument, out of nothing, produce, at
such a vast distance from him as his hands can by no means reach
unto, such mighty effects as the earth itself and the fulness thereof,
is not of an easy proof or resolution. But on these things at present
I shall not insist. Certain it is that, on this apprehension of God,
the Epicureans disputed for the impossibility of the creation of the
world.1

His first question, then, is, " Were the heaven and earth from all
eternity, or created at a certain time ? and by whom ?" To which
he answers with Gen. i. 1, " In the beginning God created the heaven
and the earth."

1 " Quibus enim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti opens,
qua construi a Deo atque sedificari mundum facit ? Quae molitio ? Qua ferramenta ?
Qui vectes ? Quca macbinse ? Qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt ? Quemadmodum
autem obedire et parere voluntati architect! aer, ignis, aqua, terra, potuerunt ? "—
Velleius apud Cicer. de Nat. Deor. lib. L 8.

142 VINDICIj£ EV ANGELICA.

Right. Only in the exposition of this verse, as it discovers the
principal efficient cause of the creation of all things, or the author of
this great work, Mr B. afterward expounds himself to differ from us
and the word of God in other places. By " God" he intends the
Father only and exclusively, the Scripture plentifully ascribing this
work also to the Son and Holy Ghost, manifesting their concurrence
in the indivisible Deity unto this great work, though, by way of
eminency, this work be attributed to the Father, as that of redemp
tion is to the Son, and that of regeneration to the Holy Ghost, from
neither of which notwithstanding is the Father excluded.

Perhaps the using of the name of God in the plural number, where
mention is made of the creation, in conjunction with a verb singular,
Gen. i. 1, and the express calling of God our Creators and Makers,
Eccles. xii 1, Ps. cxlix. 2, Job xxxv. 10, wants not a significancy
to this thing.1 And indeed he that shall consider the miserable
evasions that the adversaries have invented to escape the argument
thence commonly insisted on must needs be confirmed in the per
suasion of the force of it.3 Mr B. may haply close with Plato in
this business, who, in his " Timasus," brings in his faifjuoupyos speaking
to his genii about the making of man, telling them that they were
mortal, but encouraging them to obey him in the making of other
creatures, upon the promise of immortality. " Turn you," saith he,
"according to the law of nature, to the making of living creatures,
and imitate my power which I used in your generation or birth;"3 —
a speech fit enough for Mr B/s god, " who is shut up in heaven," and
not able of himself to attend his whole business. But what a sad
success this demiurgus had, by his want of prescience, or foresight
of what his demons would do (wherein also Mr B. likens God unto
him), is farther declared ; for they imprudently causing a conflux of
too much matter and humour, no small tumult followed thereon in
heaven, as at large you may see in the same author. However,
it is said expressly the Son or Word created all things, John i. 3 ;
and, "By him are all things," 1 Cor. viii. 6, Rev. iv. 11. Of the
Holy Ghost the same is affirmed, Gen. i. 2, Job xxvi. 13, Ps. xxxiii.
6. Nor can the Word and Spirit be degraded from the place of
principal efficient cause in this work to a condition of instrumentality
only, which is urged (especially in reference to the Spirit), unless we

1 " Poterat et illud de angelis intelligi, Faciamus hominem, etc., sed quia sequitur, ad
imaginem nostram, nefas est credere, ad imagines angelorum hominem esse factum,
aut eandem esse imaginem angelorum et Dei. Et ideo recte intelligitur pluralitas
Trinitatis. Quse tamen Trinitas, quia unus est Deus, etiam cum dixisset, fadamus, et
fecit, inquit, Deus hominem ad imaginem Dei : non vero dixit, fecerunt Dii ad imaginem
Deorum." — Aug. de Civit. Dei, lib. xvi. cap. vi.

8 Georg. Enjed. in. Explicat. loc. Ver. et Nov. Testam. in Gen. i. 26.

Tptnffft Kara, (futriv iiftiT; Iwi Tflv Tea? T^uinv anfiioupyittv, (t.i/j,oufj.iioi T»J» tftri» ou»af&n

irtfi T)I> vptripat yintH. — Plato, in Timaso. Dial. p. iii. vol. ii. p. 43.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 143

shall suppose them to have been created before any creation, and to
have been instrumental of their own production. But of these things
in their proper place.

His second question is, " How long was God in making them ?"
and he answers from Exod. xx. 11, "In six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is."

The rule I formerly prescribed to myself of dealing with Mr B.
causes me to pass this question also without farther inquiry ; although,
having already considered what his notions are concerning the nature
and properties of God, I can scarce avoid conjecturing that by this
crude proposal of the time wherein the work of God's creation was
finished, there is an intendment to insinuate such a gross conception
of the working of God as will by no means be suited to his omnipo
tent production of all things. But speaking of things no farther than
enforced, I shall not insist on this query.

His third is, "How did God create man?" and the answer is,
Gen. ii. 7. To which he adds a fourth, " How did he create woman V
which he resolves from Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Mr B., undertaking to give all the grounds of religion in his Cate
chisms, teacheth as well by his silence as his expressions. What
he mentions not, in the known doctrine he opposeth, he may well be
interpreted to reject. As to the matter whereof man and woman
were made, Mr B.'s answers do express it; but as to the condi
tion and state wherein they were made, of that he is silent, though
he knows the Scripture doth much more abound in delivering the
one than the other. Neither can his silence in this thing be imputed
to oversight or forgetfulness, considering how subservient it is to his
intendment in his last two questions, for the subverting of the doc
trine of original sin, and the denial of all those effects and conse
quences of the first breach of covenant whereof he speaks. He can,
upon another account, take notice that man was made in the image
of God: but whereas hitherto Christians have supposed that that
denoted some spiritual perfection bestowed on man, wherein he
resembles God, Mr B. hath discovered that it is only an expression
of some imperfection of God, wherein he resembles man ; which yet
he will as hardly persuade us of as that a man hath seven eyes or
two wings, which are ascribed unto God also. That man was created
in a resemblance and likeness unto God in that immortal substance
breathed into his nostrils, Gen. ii. 7, in the excellent rational faculties
thereof, in the dominion he was intrusted withal over a great part of
God's creation, but especially in the integrity and uprightness of his
person, Eccles. vii. 29, wherein he stood before God, in reference to
the obedience required at his hands, — which condition, by the im
planting of new qualities in our soul, we are, through Christ, in some
measure renewed unto, Col. iii. 10, 12, Eph. iv. 24, — the Scripture is

144 VINDICI.E EVANGELKLE.

clear, evident, and full in the discovery of ; but hereof Mr B. con
ceives not himself bound to take notice. But what is farther needful
to be spoken as to the state of man before the fall will fall under the
consideration of the last question of this chapter.

Mr B.'s process in the following questions is, to express the story
of man's outward condition, unto the eighth, where he inquires
after the commandment given of God to man when he put him into
the garden, in these words: — "Q. What commandment gave he to
the man when he put him into the garden?" This he resolves from
Gen. ii. 16, 17. That God gave our first parents the command ex
pressed is undeniable. That the matter chiefly expressed in that
command was all or the principal part of what he required of them>
Mr B. doth not go about to prove. I shall only desire to know of
him whether God did not in that estate require of them that they
should love him, fear him, believe him, acknowledge their dependence
on him, in universal obedience to his will? and whether a suitable
ness unto all this duty were not wrought within them by God? If
he shall say No, and that God required no more of them but only not
to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, I desire to know
whether they might have hated God, abhorred him, believed Satan,
and yet been free from the threatening here mentioned, if they had
only forbore the outward eating of the fruit? If this shall be granted,
I hope I need not insist to manifest what will easily be inferred, nor to
show how impossible this is, God continuing God, and man a rational
creature. * If he shall say that certainly God did require that they
should own him for God, — that is, believe him, love him, fear him,
and worship him, according to all that he should reveal to them and
require of them, — I desire to know whether this particular command
could be any other than sacramental and symbolical as to the matter
of it, being a thing of so small importance in its own nature, in com
parison of those moral acknowledgments of God before mentioned;
and to that question I shall not need to add more.

Although it may justly be supposed that Mr B. is not without some
thoughts of deviation from the truth in the following questions, yet
the last being of most importance, and he being express therein in
denying all the effects of the first sin, but only the curse that came
upon the outward, visible world, I shall insist only on that, and close
our consideration of this chapter. His question is thus proposed:
" Q. Did the sin of our first parents in eating of the forbidden fruit
bring both upon them and their posterity the guilt of hell-fire, deface
the image of God in them, darken their understandings, enslave their
wills, deprive them of power to do good, and cause mortality? If not,
what are the true penalties denounced against them for that offence?;l
To this he answers from Gen. iii. 16-19.

1 Vid. Diatrib. de Justit. Vindicat.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 145

What the sin of our first parents was may easily be discovered from
\vhat was said before concerning the commandment given to them.
If universal obedience was required of them unto God, according to
the tenor of the law of their creation, their sin was an universal re
bellion against and apostasy from him; which though it expressed
itself in the peculiar transgression of that command mentioned, yet
it is far from being reducible to any one kind of sin, whose whole
nature is comprised in that expression. Of the effects of this sin com
monly assigned, Mr B. annumerates and rejects six, sundry whereof
are coincident with, and all but one reducible to, that general head of
loss of the image of God ; but for the exclusion of them all at once
from being any effects of the first sin, Mr B. thus argues: " If there
were no effects or consequences of the first sin but what are expressly
mentioned, Gen. iii. 16-19, then those now mentioned are no effects
of it ; but there are no effects or consequences of that first sin but
what are mentioned in that place : " therefore those recounted in his
query, and commonly esteemed such, are to be cashiered from any
such place in the thoughts of men.

Ans. The words insisted on by Mr B. being expressive of the
curse of God for sin on man, and on the whole creation here below for
his sake, it will not be easy for him to evince that none of the things
he rejects are not eminently inwrapped in them. Would God have
denounced and actually inflicted such a curse on the whole creation,
which he had put in subjection to man, as well as upon man himself,
and actually have inflicted it with so much dread and severity as he
hath done, if the transgression upon the account whereof he did it had
not been as universal a rebellion against him as could be fallen into?
Man fell in his whole dependence from God, and is cursed universally^,
in all his concernments, spiritual and temporal.

But is this indeed the only place of Scripture where the effects of
our apostasy from God, in the sin of our first parents, are described ?
Mr B. may as well tell us that Gen. iii. 15 is the only place where
mention is made of Jesus Christ, for there he is mentioned. But a
little to clear this whole matter in our passage, though what hath
been spoken may suffice to make naked Mr B/s sophistry : —

1. By the effects of the first sin, we understand every thing of evil
that, either within or without, in respect of a present or future con
dition, in reference to God and the fruition of him whereto man was
created, or the enjoyment of any goodness from God, is come upon
mankind, by the just ordination and appointment of God, where-
unto man was not obnoxious in his primitive state and condition. I
am not at present at all engaged to speak de modo, of what is pri
vative, what positive, in original sin, of the way of the traduction or
propagation of it, of the imputation of the guilt of the first sin, and
adhesion of the pollution of our nature defiled thereby, or any other

VOL. XII. 10

146 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

questions that are coincident with these in the usual inquest made
into and after the sin of Adam and the fruits of it; but only as to the
things themselves, which are here wholly denied. Now, —

2. That whatsoever is evil in man by nature, whatever he is ob
noxious and liable unto that is hurtful and destructive to him and all
men in common, in reference to the end whereto they were created, or
any title wherewith they were at first intrusted, is all wholly the effect
of the first sin, and is in solidum to be ascribed thereunto, is easily
demonstrated ; for, —

(1.) That which is common to all things in any kind, and is proper
to them only of that kind, must needs have some common cause
equally respecting the whole kind : but now of the evils that are com
mon to all mankind, and peculiar or proper to them and every one
of them, there can be no cause but that which equally concerns them
all; which, by the testimony of God himself, was this fall of Adam,
Rom. v. 12, 15-19.

(2.) The evils that are now incumbent upon men in their natural
condition (which what they are shall be afterward considered) were
either incumbent on them at their first creation, before the sin and
fall of our first parents, or they are come upon them since, through
some interposing cause or occasion. That they were not in them or
on them, that they were not liable or obnoxious to those evils which
are now incumbent on them, in their first creation, as they came
forth from the hand of God (besides what was said before of the state
and condition wherein man was created, even "upright" in the sight
of God, in his favour and acceptation, no way obnoxious to his anger
and wrath), is evident by the light of this one consideration, namely,
that there was nothing in man nor belonging to him, no respect, no
regard or relation, but what was purely and immediately of the
holy God's creation and institution. Now, it is contrary to all that he
hath revealed or made known to us of himself, that he should be the
immediate author of so much evil as is now, by his own testimony,
in man by nature, and, without any occasion, of so much vanity and
misery as he is subject unto; and, besides, directly thwarting the tes
timony which he gave of all the works of his hands, that they were
exceeding good, it being evident that man, in the condition whereof
we speak, is exceeding evil.

3. If ah1 the evil mentioned hath since befallen mankind, then it hath
done so either by some chance and accident whereof God was not aware,
or by his righteous judgment and appointment, in reference to some
procuring and justly-deserving cause of such a punishment. To affirm
the first, is upon the matter to deny him to be God ; and I doubt not
but that men at as easy and cheap a rate of sin may deny that there
is a God, as, confessing his divine essence, to turn it into an idol, and
by making thick clouds, as Job speaks, to interpose between him and

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 147

the affairs of the world, to exclude his energetical providence in the
disposal of all the works of his hands. If the latter be affirmed, I ask,
as before, what other common cause, wherein all and every one of
mankind is equally concerned, can be assigned of the evils mentioned,
as the procurement of the wrath and vengeance of God, from whence
they are, but only the fall of Adam, the sin of our first parents, espe
cially considering that the Holy Ghost doth so expressly point out
this fountain and source of the evils insisted on, Rom. v. 12, 15-19?

4. These things, then, being premised, it will quickly appear that
every one of the particulars rejected by Mr B. from being fruits or
effects of the first sin are indeed the proper issues of it ; and though
Mr B. cut the roll of the abominations and corruptions of the nature
of man by sin, and cast it into the fire, yet we may easily write it
again, and add many more words of the like importance.

The first effect or fruit of the first sin rejected by Mr. B. is, " its
rendering men guilty of hell-fire ;" but the Scripture seems to be of
another mind, Rom. v. 12, " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all
men, for that all have sinned." That all men sinned in Adam, that
they contracted the guilt of the same death with him, that death
entered by sin, the Holy Ghost is express in. The death here men
tioned is that which God threatened to Adam if he did transgress,
Gen. ii. 17; which that it was not death temporal only, yea not at all,
Mr B. contends by denying mortality to be a fruit of this sin, as
also excluding in this very query all room for death spiritual, which
consists in the defacing of the image of God in us, which he with
this rejects : and what death remains but that which hath hell fol
lowing after it we shall afterward consider.

Besides, that death which Christ died to deliver us from was that
which we were obnoxious to upon the account of the first sin ; for he
came to " save that which was lost," and tasted death to deliver us
from death, dying to " deliver them who through fear of death were
all their lifetime subject to bondage," Heb. ii. 15. But that this was
such a death as hath hell-fire attending it, he manifests by affirming
that he " delivers us from the wrath to come." By " hell-fire" we
understand nothing but the "wrath of God" for sin; into whose hands
it is a fearful thing to fall, our God being a consuming fire. That the
guilt of every sin is this death whereof we speak, that hath both
curse and wrath attending it, and that it is the proper "wages of sin,"
the testimony of God is evident, Rom. vi. 23. What other death
men are obnoxious to on the account of the first sin, that hath not
these concomitants, Mr B. hath not as yet revealed. " By nature,"
also, we are " children of wrath," Eph. ii. 3. And on what foot of
account our obnoxiousness now by nature unto wrath is to be stated,
is sufficiently evident by the light of the preceding considerations.

148 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JE.

The " defacing of the image of God in us" by this sin, as it i<?
usually asserted, is in the next place denied. That man was created
in the image of God, and wherein that image of God doth consist,
were before declared. That we are now born with that character
upon us, as it was at first enstamped upon us, must be affirmed, or
some common cause of the defect that is in us, wherein all and every
one of the posterity of Adam are equally concerned, besides that of
the first sin, is to be assigned. That this latter cannot be done hath
been already declared. He that shall undertake to make good' the
former must engage in a more difficult work than Mr B., in the
midst of his other employments, is willing to undertake. To insist
on all particulars relating to the image of God in man, how far it is
defaced, whether any thing properly and directly thereunto belonging
be yet left remaining in us ; to declare how far our souls, in respect of
their immortal substance, faculties, and consciences, and our persons,
in respect of that dominion over the creatures which yet, by God's
gracious and merciful providence, we retain, may be said to bear
the image'of God, — is a work of another nature than what I am now
engaged in. For the asserting of what is here denied by Mr B., con
cerning the defacing of the image of God in us by sin, no more is
required but only the tender of some demonstrations to the main of
our intendment in the assertion touching the loss by the first sin, and
our present want, in the state of nature, of that righteousness and
holiness wherein man at his first creation stood before God (in re
ference unto the end whereunto he was created), in uprightness and
ability of walking unto all well-pleasing. And as this will be fully
manifested in the consideration of the ensuing particulars instanced
in by Mr B., so it is sufficiently clear and evident from the renovation
of that image which we have by Jesus Christ ; and that is expressed
both in general and in all the particulars wherein we affirm that
image to be defaced. " The new man," which we put on in Jesus
Christ, which " is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that
created him," Col. iii. 10, is that which we want, by sin's defacing
(suo more) of that image of God in us which we had in knowledge.
So Eph. iv. 23, 24, that new man is said to consist in the " renewing
of our mind, whereby after God we are created in righteousness and
holiness." So, then, whereas we were created in the image of God,
in righteousness and holiness, and are to be renewed again by Christ
into the same condition of his image in righteousness and holiness,
we doubt not to affirm that by the first sin (the only interposition of
general concernment to all the sons of men) the image of God in
us was exceedingly defaced. In sum, that which made us sinners
brought sin and death upon us; that which made us liable to condem
nation, that defaced the image of God in us; and that all this was done
by the first sin the apostle plainly asserts, Rom. v. 12, 15, 17-19, etc.

'Jff MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 149

To the next particular effect of sin by Mr B. rejected, " the dark
ening of our understandings," I shall only inquire of him whether
God made us at first with our understandings dark and ignorant as
to those things which are of absolute necessity that we should be ac
quainted withal, for the attainment of the end whereunto he made
us ? For once I will suppose he will not affirm it ; and shall there
fore proceed one step farther, and ask him whether there be not
such a darkness now upon us by nature, opposed unto that light,
that spiritual and saving knowledge, which is of absolute necessity
for every one to have and be furnished withal that will again attain
that image of God which we are born short of. Now, because this is
that which will most probably be denied, I shall, by the way, only
desire him, —

1. To cast aside all the places of Scripture where it is positively
and punctually asserted that we are so dark and blind, and darkness
itself, in the things of God ; and then,

2. All those where it is no less punctually and positively asserted
that Christ gives us light, knowledge, understanding, which of our
selves we have not. And if he be not able to do so, then,

3. To tell me whether the darkness mentioned in the former
places and innumerable others, and [of which mention is made], as
to the manner and cause of its removal and taking away, in the
latter, be part of that death which passed on all men "by the offence
of one," or by what other chance it is come upon us.

Of the " enslaving of our wills, and the depriving us of power to
do good," there is the same reason as of that next before. It is not
my purpose to handle the common-place of the corruption of nature
by sin: nor can I say that it is well for Mr B. that he finds none of
those effects of sin in himself, nothing of darkness, bondage, or dis
ability, or if he do, that he knows where to charge it, and not on
himself and the depravedness of his own nature; and that because
I know none who are more desperately sick than those who, by a
fever of pride, have lost the sense of their own miserable condition.
Only to stop him in his haste from rejecting the evils mentioned
from being effects or consequences of the first sin, I desire him to
peruse a little the ensuing scriptures; and I take them as they come
to mind : Eph. ii. 1-3, 5 ; John v. 25 ; Matt. viii. 22 ; Eph. v. 8 ;
Luke iv. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25, 26; John viii. 34; Rom. vi. 16; Gen.
vi. 5 ; Rom. vii. 5 ; John iii. 6 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; Rom. iii. 12 ; Acts
viii. 31 ; John v. 40 ; Rom. viii. 7; Jer. xiii. 23, etc.

The last thing denied is its " causing mortality." God threaten
ing man with death if he sinned, Gen. ii. 17, seems to instruct us
that if he had not sinned he should not have died ; and upon his
sin, affirming that on that account he should be dissolved and return
to his dust, Gen. iii. 19, no less evidently convinces us that his

150 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

sin caused mortality actually and in the event. The apostle, also,
affirming that " death entered by sin, and passed upon all, inasmuch
as all have sinned," seems to be of our mind. Neither can any
other sufficient cause be assigned on the account whereof innocent
man should have been actually mortal or eventually have died.
Mr B., it seems, is of another persuasion, and, for the confirmation
of his judgment, gives you the words of the curse of God to man
upon his sinning, " Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return ;"
the strength of his reason therein lying in this, that if God de
nounced the sentence of mortality on man after sinning, and for
his sin, then mortality was not an effect of sin, but man was mortal
before in the state of innocency. Who doubts but that at this rate
he may be able to prove what he pleases ?

A brief declaration of our sense in ascribing immortality to the
first man in the state of innocency, that none may be mistaken in the
expressions used, may put a close to our consideration of this chap
ter. In respect of his own essence and being, as also of all outward
and extrinsical causes, God alone is eminently and perfectly immor
tal; he only in that sense hath "life and immortality."1 Angels and
souls of men, immaterial substances, are immortal as to their intrinsi-
cal essence, free from principles of corruption and mortality ; but yet
are obnoxious to it in respect of that outward cause (or the power of
God), which can at any time reduce them into nothing. The immor
tality we ascribe to man in innocency is only an assured preservation
by the power of God from actual dying, notwithstanding the possi
bility thereof which he was in upon the account of the constitution
of his person, and the principles thereunto concurring. So that
though from his own nature he had a possibility of dying, and in that
sense was mortal, yet God's institution assigning him life in the way
of obedience, he had a possibility of not dying, and was in that sense
immortal, as hath been declared.3 If any one desire farther satisfaction
herein, let him consult Johannes Junius' answer to Socinus' Pre
lections, in the first chapter whereof he pretends to answer in proof
the assertion in title, " Primus homo ante lapsum natura mortalis
fuit ;" wherein he partly mistakes the thing in question, which re-

1 " Ulud corpus ante peccatum, et mortale secundum aliam, et immortale secundum
aliam causam dici poterat ; id est, mortale quia poterat mori, immortale quia poterat
non mori. Aliud est enim non posse mori, sicut quasdam naturas immortales creavit
Deus, aliud est autem posse non mori ; secundum quern modum primus creatus est
homo immortalis, quod ei prsestabatur de ligno vitae, non de constitutione naturae ; a
quo ligno separatus est cum peccasset, ut posset mori, qui nisi peccasset posset non
mori. Mortalis ergo erat conditione corporis animalis, immortalis autem beneficio con-
ditoris. Si enim corpus animale, utique et mortale, quia et mori pcterat, quamvis et
immortale dico, quia et mori non poterat." — Aug. torn. iii. de Genesi ad literam, lib. vi.
cap. xxiv.

2 " Quincunque dicit Adam primum hominem mortalem factum, ita ut sive peccaret
give non peccaret, moreretur in corpore, hoc est de corpore exiret non peccati merito sed
necessitate natures, anathema sit." — Cone. Milevitan, cap. i-

or MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 151

spects not the constitution of man's nature, but the event of the con
dition wherein he was created,1 and himself in another place states
it better.2

The sum of the whole may be reduced to what follows : — Simply
and absolutely immortal is God only : " He only hath immortality,"
1 Tim. vi. 1 6. Immortal in respect of its whole substance or essence
is that which is separate from all matter, which is the principle of cor
ruption, as angels, or is not educed from the power of it, whither of
its own accord it should again resolve, as the souls of men. The bodies
also of the saints in heaven, yea, and of the wicked in hell, shall be
immortal, though in their own natures corruptible, being changed and
preserved by the power of God. Adam was mortal as to the consti
tution of his body, which was apt to die ; immortal in respect of his
soul in its own substance ; immortal in their union by God's appoint
ment, and from his preservation upon his continuance in obedience.
By the composition of his body before his fall, he had a posse mori;
by the appointment of God, a posse non mori ; by his fall, a non
posse non mori.

In this estate, on his disobedience, he was threatened with death;
and therefore was obedience the tenure whereby he held his grant of
immortality, which on his neglect he was penally to be deprived of.
In that estate he had, — (1.) The immortality mentioned, or a power
of not dying, from the appointment of God ; (2.) An uprightness and
integrity of his person before God, with an ability to walk with him
in all the obedience he required, being made in the image of God
and upright ; (3.) A right, upon his abode in that condition, to an
eternally blessed life ; which he should (4.) actually have enjoyed,
for he had a pledge of it in the " tree of life " He lost it for himself
and us ; which if he never had it he could not do. The death where
with he was threatened stood in opposition to all these, it being
. most ridiculous to suppose that any thing penal in the Scripture
comes under the name of "death" that was not here threatened to
Adam ; — death of the body, in a deprivation of his immortality spoken
of; of the soul spiritually, in sin, by the loss of his righteousness and
integrity; of both, in their obnoxiousness to death eternal; actually
to be undergone, without deliverance by Christ, in opposition to the
right to a better, a blessed condition, which he had. That all these
are penal, and called in the Scriptures by the name of " death," is
evident to all that take care to know what is contained in them.

For a close, then, of this chapter and discourse, let us also propose a
few questions as to the matter under consideration, and see what an
swer the Scripture will positively give in to our inquiries : —

1 " Qusestio est dc immortalitate hominis hujus concreti, ex anima et corpore conflati.
Qua ado loquor de morte, de dissolutione hujus concreti loquor." — Socin. contra Puo-
cium, p. 228.

2 Vid. Rivet. Exercit. in Gen. cap. i. Exercit. 9.

152 ." VlNDICI-E EVANGELIC^.

First, then, —

Ques. 1. In what state and condition was man at first created f

Ans. " God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them," Gen. i. 27. "And
God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good," verse 31. " In the image of God made he man," chap. ix. 6.
" Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man UPRIGHT,"
Eccles. vii. 29. "Put on the new man, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness," Eph. iv. 24. " Put on the new man,
which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created
him," Col. iii. 10.

Q. 2. Should our first parents have died had they not sinned, or
were they obnoxious to death in the state ofinnocency?

A. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day
that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," Gen. ii. 16, 17. " By
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned," Rom. v. 1 2. " For the
wages of sin is death," chap. vi. 23.

Q. 3. Are we now, since the fall, born with the image of God so
enstamped on us as at our first creation in Adam?

A. " All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God," Rom.
iii. 23. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man
upright ; but they have sought out many inventions," Eccles. vii. 29.
" So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God," Rom. viii. 8.
" And you who were dead in trespasses and sins," Eph. ii. 1. " For
we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived,
serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful,
and hating one another," Titus iii. 3. "The old man is corrupt
according to the deceitful lusts," Eph. iv. 22.

Q. 4. Are we now born approved of God and accepted with him,
as when we were first created, or what is our condition now by
nature? what say the Scriptures hereunto?

A. " We were by nature the children of wrath, even as others/'
Eph. ii. 3. " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king
dom of God," John iii. 3. " He that believeth not the Son, the
wrath of God abideth on him," verse 36. " That which is born of
the flesh is flesh," John ifi. 6.

Q. 4. Are our understandings by nature able to discern the things
of God, or are they darkened and blind?

A. " The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of
God ; for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them,
because they are spiritually discerned," 1 Cor. ii. 14. "The light
shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not," John

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 153

i. 5. " To preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight
to the blind," Luke iv. 18. "Having the understanding darkened,
being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is
in them, because of the blindness of their heart," Eph. iv. 18. " Ye
were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord," chap.
v. 8. " For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness,
hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," 2 Cor. iv. 6. " And we
know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under
standing, that we may know him that is true," 1 John v. 20.

Q. 5. Are we able to do those things now, in the state of nature,
which are spiritually good and acceptable to God ?

A. " The carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not subject
to the law of God, neither indeed can be," Rom. viii. 7. " You were
dead in trespasses and sins," Eph. ii. 1. " The imagination of man's
heart is evil from his youth," Gen. viii. 21. " Can the Ethiopian
change his skin, or the leopard his spots ? then may ye also do good,
that are accustomed to do evil," Jer. xiii. 23. " For without me ye
can do nothing," John xv. 5. "Not that we are sufficient of our
selves to think any thing as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of
God," 2 Cor. iii. 5. " For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
dwelleth no good thing," Horn. vii. 18.

Q. 6. How came we into this miserable state and condition ?

A. " Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me," Ps. li. 5. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? not one," Job xiv. 4. "That which is born of the flesh
is flesh," John iii. 6. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for that
all have sinned," Rom. v. 12.

Q. 7- Is, then, the guilt of the first sin of our first parents reckoned
unto us?

A. " But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For through
the offence of one many be dead," Rom. v. 15. " And not as it was
by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to
condemnation," verse 16. " For by one man's offence death reigned,"
verse 17. "Therefore by the offence of one judgment came upon
all men to condemnation," verse 18. " By one man's disobedience
many were made sinners," verse 1 9.

Thus, and much more fully, doth the Scripture set out and declare
the condition of man both before and after the fall ; concerning which,
although the most evident demonstration of the latter lies in the
revelation made of the exceeding efficacy of that power and grace
which God in Christ puts forth for our conversion and delivery from
that state and condition before described, yet so much is spoken of
this dark side of it as will render vain the attempts of any who shall

1 54 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

endeavour to plead the cause of corrupted nature, or alleviate the
guilt of the first sin.

It may not be amiss, in the winding up of the whole, to give the
reader a brief account of what slight thoughts this gentleman and his
companions have concerning this whole matter of the state and con
dition of the first man, his fall or sin, and the interest of all his pos
terity therein, which confessedly lie at the bottom of that whole
dispensation of grace in Jesus Christ which is revealed in the gospel.

First. [As] for Adam himself, they are so remote from assigning
to him any eminency of knowledge, righteousness, or holiness, in the
state wherein he was created, that, —

1. For his knowledge, they say, " He was a mere great baby, that
knew not that he was naked ;"1 so also taking away the difference
between the simple knowledge of nakedness in innocency, and the
knowledge joined with shame that followed sin. " Of his wife he
knew no more but what occurred to his senses;"3 though the ex
pressions which he used at first view and sight of her do plainly argue
another manner of apprehension, Gen. ii. 23. For " the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, he knew not the virtue of it;"3 which
yet I know not how it well agrees with another place of the same
author, where he concludes that in the state of innocency there was
in Adam a real predominancy of the natural appetite, which conquered
or prevailed to the eating of the fruit of that tree.4 Also, that being
mortal, he knew not himself to be so.5 The sum is, he was even a
very beast, that knew neither himself, his duty, nor the will of God
concerning him.

2. [As] for his righteousness and holiness, which, as was said before,
because he was made upright, in the image of God, we ascribe unto
him, Socinus contends in one whole chapter in his Prelections, " that
he was neither just, nor holy, nor ought to be so esteemed nor called."6

And Smalcius, in his confutation of Franzius' " Theses de Peccato
Originali," all along derides and laughs to scorn the apprehension or
persuasion that Adam was created in righteousness and holiness, or
that ever he lost any thing of the image of God, or that ever he had

1 " Adamus instar infantis vel pueri se nudum esse ignoraTit." — Smalc. de Ver. Dei
Fil. cap. vii. p. 2.

2 "De conjuge propria, non nisi sensibus obvia cognovit." — Socin. de Stat. Prim. Horn,
cap. iv. p. 119.

3 " Vim arboris scientiee boni et mali perspectam nonhabuerit." — Idem ibid, p. 197.
* Socin. Prselect. cap. iii. p. 8.

4 " Cum ipse mortalis esset, se tamen mortalem esse nesciverit." — Socin. de Stat.
Prim. Horn. cap. iv. p. 118.

8 " Utrum primus homo ante peccatum justitiam aliquam originalem habuerit ?
Plerique omnes eum illam habuisse affirmant. Sed ego scire velim . . . concludamus
igitur, Adamum, etiam antequam mandatum illud Dei transgrederetur, revera justum
non fuisse. Cum nee impeccabilis esset, nee ullum peccandi occasionem habuisset ; vel
certe justum eum fuisse affirmari non posse, cum nullo modo constet, eum ulla ratione
a peccando abstinuisse." — Socin. Pnelect. cap. iii. p. 8; vid. cap. iv. p. 11.

OF MAN'S CONDTTION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 155

any thing of the image of God beyond or besides that dominion over
the creatures which God gave him.1

Most of the residue of the herd, describing the estate and condition
of man in his creation, do wholly omit any mention of any moral
uprightness in him.3

And this is the account these gentlemen give us concerning the
condition and state wherein the first man was of God created : A
heavy burden of the earth it seems he was, that had neither righteous
ness nor holiness whereby he might be enabled to walk before God
in reference to that great end whereunto he was created, nor any
knowledge of God, himself, or his duty.

Secondly. [As] for his sin, the great master of their family disputes
that it was a bare transgression of that precept of "not eating the fruit
of the tree oi' knowledge of good and evil/' and that his nature was
not vitiated or corrupted thereby:3 wherein he is punctually followed
by the Racovian Catechism, which also giveth this reason why his
nature was not depraved by it, namely, because it was but one act;
— so light are their thoughts and expressions of that great trans
gression ! 4

Thirdly. [As] for his state and condition, they all, with open
mouth, cry out that he was mortal and obnoxious to death, which
should in a natural way have come upon him though he had not
sinned.5 But of this before.

Fourthly. Farther ; that the posterity of Adam were no way con
cerned, as to their spiritual prejudice, in that sin of his, as though they
should either partake of the guilt of it or have their nature vitiated
or corrupted thereby ; but that the whole doctrine of original sin is a
figment of Austin and the schoolmen that followed him, is the con-

1 " Fit mentio destitutionis vel carentiae divinae gloriae, ergo privationis imaginis
Dei et justitiae et sanctitatis, ejusque originalis ; fit mentio carentiae divinae glorias, ergo
in creatione cum homine fuit communicata : o ineptias!" — Smalc. Refut. Thes. dePeccat.
. Orig. disput. 2, p. 42. " Porro ait Franzius, Paulura mox e vestigio imaginem Dei,
seu novum hominem ita explicare, quod fuerit conditus primus homo ad justitiam et
sanctimoniam veram. Hie cum erroribus fallacioe, etiam et fortassis voluntarigc, sunt
commixtse. . . . Videat lector benevolus quanti sit facienda illatio Franzii, dum ait,
ergo imago Dei in homine ante lapsum consistebat in concreata justitia et vera sancti-
monia primorum parentum. Si htec non sunt scopae dissolutse, equidem nescio quid
eas tandem nominabimur." — Smalc. ubi sup. pp. 50, 61.

3 Volkel. de Vera Eelig. lib. ii. cap. vi. p. 9, edit, cum lib. Crell. de Deo.

1 Socin. Praelect. cap. iii. p. 8.

* " Etenim unum illud peccatum per se, non modo universos posteros, sed ne ipsum
quidem Adamum, corrumpendi vim habere potuit. Dei vero consilio, in peccati illius
paenam id factum fuisse, nee usquam legitur, et plane incredibile est, imo impium id
cogitare." — Socin. Praalect. cap. iv. sec. 4, p. 13. " Lapsus . Adami, cum unus actus
fuerit, viin earn, quae depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus posterorum ipsius
posset, habere non potuit. Ipsi vero in paenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet,
ut superius exposuimus, et Deum ilium, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus
est id facere voluisse." — Cat. Eac. de Cognit. Christ, cap. x. ques. 2.

5 " De Adamo, eum immortalem creatum non fuisse, res apertissima est. Nam ex
terra creatus, cibis usus, liberis gignendis destinatus, et animalis ante lapsum fuit." —
Smalc. de Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. vii. de promisso vitae scternas.

156 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^

stant clamour of them all.1 And indeed this is the great foundation
of all or the greatest part of their religion. Hence are the necessity
of the satisfaction and merit of Christ, the efficacy of grace, and the
power of the Spirit in conversion, decried. On this account is salva
tion granted, by them, without Christ, a power of keeping all the
commandments asserted, and justification upon our obedience. Of
which in the process of our discourse.

Such are the thoughts, such are the expressions, of Mr B.'s masters
concerning this whole matter. Such was Adam in their esteem,
such was his fall, and such our concernment therein.2 He had no
righteousness, no holiness (yea, Socinus at length confesses that he
did not believe his soul was immortal3); we contracted no guilt in
him, derive no pollution from him. Whether these men are in any
measure acquainted with the plague of their own hearts, the severity
and spirituality of the law of God, with that redemption which is
in the blood of Jesus, the Lord will one day manifest; but into their
secret let not my soul descend.

Lest the weakest or meanest reader should be startled with the
mention of these things, not finding himself ready furnished with
arguments from Scripture to disprove the boldness and folly of these
men in their assertions, I shall add some few arguments whereby
the severals by them denied and opposed are confirmed from the
Scriptures, the places before mentioned being in them cast into that
form and method wherein they are readily subservient to the pur
pose in hand : —

First. That man was created in the image of God, in knowledge,

1 " Concludimus igitur, nullum, improprie etiam loquendo, peccatum originate esse ;
id est, ex peccato illo primi parentis nullam labem aut pravitatem universe humano
generi necessario ingenitam esse, sive inflictam quodammodo fuisse." — Socin. Prselect.
cap. iv. sect. 4, pp. 13, 14. " Peccatum originis nullum prorsusest, quare nee liberum
arbitrium vitiare potuit. Nee enim e Scriptura id peccatum originis doceri potest." —

Cat. Rac. de Cognit. Christ, cap. x. de Lib. Arbit. " Quaedam ex falsissimis prin-

cipiis deducuntur. In illo genere illud potissimum est, quod ex peccato (ut vocant)
originali depromitur : de quo ita disputant, ut crimen a primo parente conceptum, in
sobolem derivatum esse defendant, ejusque contagione, turn omnes humanas Tires cor-
ruptas et depravatas, turn potissimum voluntatis libertatem destructam esse asserant.
. . . quae omnia nos pernegamus, utpote et sanae mentis rationi, et divinae Scripturse
contraria." — Volkel. de Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. xviii. pp. 547, 548. " Prior pars thesis
Franzii falsa est. Nam nullum individuum unquam peccato originis fait infectum. Quia
peccatum illud mera est fabula, quam tanquam fcetum alienum fovent Lutherani, et
alii." — Smalc. Refut. Thes. Franz, disput. 2, p. 46, 47. Vid. Compend. Socin. cap. iii.;
Smalc. de Vera Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. vii. " Putas Adatni peccatum et inobedientiam
ejus posteritati imputari. At hoc aeque tibi negamus, quam Christi obedientiam cre-
dentibus imputari." — Jonas Schlichtingius, disput. pro Socino adversus Meisnerum, p.
251 ; vide etiam p. 100. " Quibus ita explicatis, facile eos qui . . . omnem Adami
posteritatem, in ipso Adamo parente suo peccasse, et mortis supplicium vere fuisse
commeritum." — IdemfComment. in Epist. ad Hebraeos ad cap. vii. p. 296.

2 " Ista sapientia rerum divinarum, et sanctimonia, quam Adamo ante lapsum tri-
buit Franzius, una cum aliis, idea quaedam est, in cerebro ipsorum nata." — Smalc.
ubi sup.

» Socin. Ep. 5, ad Johan. Volkel., p. 489.

or MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AKD AFTER THE FALL. 157

righteousness, and holiness, is evident on the ensuing considera
tions : —

1. He who was made " very good" and "upright," in a moral con
sideration, had the original righteousness pleaded for; for moral
goodness, integrity, and uprightness, is equivalent unto righteousness.
So are the words used in the description of Job, chap. i. 1; and "righte
ous" and " upright" are terras equivalent, Ps. xxxiii. 1. Now, that
man was made thus good and upright was manifested in the scriptures
cited in answer to the question before proposed, concerning the con
dition wherein our first parents were created. And, indeed, this
uprightness of man, this moral rectitude, was his formal aptitude
and fitness for and unto that obedience which God required of him^
and which was necessary for the end whereunto he was created.

2. He who was created perfect in his kind was created with the
original righteousness pleaded for. This is evident from hence, be
cause righteousness and holiness is a perfection of a rational being
made for the service of God. This in angels is called " the truth," or
that original holiness and rectitude which " the devil abode not in,"
John viii. 44. Now, as before, man was created " very good " and
" upright," therefore perfect as to his state and condition; and what
ever is in him of imperfection flows from the corruption and depra
vation of nature.

3. He that was created in the image of God was created in a state
of righteousness, holiness, and knowledge. That Adam was created
in the image of God is plainly affirmed in Scripture, and is not de
nied. That by the " image of God" is especially intended the qua
lities mentioned, is manifest from that farther description of the
image of God which we have given us in the scriptures before pro
duced in answer to our first question. And what is recorded of
the first man in his primitive condition will not suffer us to esteem
him such a baby in knowledge as the Socinians would make him.
His imposing of names on all creatures, his knowing of his wife on
first view, etc., exempt him from that imputation. Yea, the very
heathens could conclude that he was very wise indeed who first gave
names to things.1

Secondly. For the disproving of that mortality which they ascribe
to man in inuocency the ensuing arguments may suffice: —

1. He that was created in the image of God, in righteousness and
holiness, whilst he continued in that state and condition, was im
mortal. That man was so created lies under the demonstration of
the foregoing arguments and testimonies.- The assertion thereupon,
or the inference of immortality from the image of God, appears on
this double consideration: — (1.) In our renovation by Christ into

p.tv \yu ret d^n/Uffreirov Xayov wtpi ravrav ifvai, u ~S.UKfa.ri;, ftti^u viva, ^VIIKUH
tnrumi <rjjv Siftivti* TO. trpuru ovcftara TIHJ *fu,yii,eurH, — :PlatO in (Jratylo.

158 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

the image of God, we are renewed to a blessed immortality ; and our
likeness to God consisted no less in that than in any other commu
nicable property of his nature. (2.) Wherever is naturally perfect
righteousness, there is naturally perfect life; that is, immortality.
This is included in the very tenor of the promise of the law: "If a
man keep my statutes, he shall live in them/' Lev. xviii. 5.

2. That which the first man contracted and drew upon himself by
sin was not natural to him before he sinned: but that man con
tracted and drew death upon himself, or made himself liable and
obnoxious unto it by sin, is proved by all the texts of Scripture that
were produced above in answer to our second question; as Gen.
ii. 17, iii. 19; Bom. v. 12, 15, 17-19, vi. 23, etc.

3. That which is beside and contrary to nature was not natural
to the first man ; but death is beside and contrary to nature, as the
voice of nature abundantly testifieth : therefore, to man in his pri
mitive condition it was not natural.

Unto these may sundry other arguments be added, from the pro
mise of the law, the end of man's obedience, his constitution and
state, denying all proximate causes of death, etc. ; but these may
suffice.

Thirdly. That the sin of Adam is not to be confined to the mere
eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but
had its rise in infidelity, and comprised universal apostasy from
God, in disobedience to the law of his creation and dependence on
God, I have elsewhere demonstrated, and shall not need here again
to insist upon it.1 That it began in infidelity is evident from the
beginning of the temptation wherewith he was overcome. It was
to doubt of the truth or veracity of God to which the woman was at
first solicited by Satan: Gen. iii. 1, " Hath God said so?" pressing that
it should be otherwise than they seemed to have cause to apprehend
from what God said; and their acquiescence in that reply of Satan,
without revolving to the truth and faithfulness of God, was plain
unbelief. Now, as faith is the root of all righteousness and obe
dience, so is infidelity of all disobedience. Being overtaken, con
quered, deceived into infidelity, man gave up himself to act contrary
to God and his will, shook off his sovereignty, rose up against his
law, and manifested the frame of his heart in the pledge of his dis
obedience, eating the fruit that was sacramentally forbidden him.

Fourthly. That all men sinned in Adam, and that his sin is im
puted to all his posterity, is by them denied, but is easily evinced ;
for, —

1. By whom sin entered into the world, so that all sinned in him,
and are made sinners thereby, so that also his sin is called the " sin
of the world," in him all mankind sinned, and his sin is imputed to
1 Diatrib. de Justit. Divin. Yin., vol. x.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 159

them : but that this was the condition and state of the first sin of
Adam the scriptures before mentioned, in answer to our seventh
question, do abundantly manifest; and thence also is his sin called
" the sin of the world," John i. 29.

2. In whom all are dead, and in whom they have contracted the
guilt of death and condemnation, in him they have all sinned, and
have his sin imputed to them : but in Adam all are dead, 1 Cor.
xv. 22, as also Rom. v. 12, 15, 17-19; and death is the wages of sin
only, Rom. vi. 23.

8. As by the obedience of Christ we are made righteous, so by
the disobedience of Adam we are made sinners: so the apostle ex
pressly, Rom. v. : but we are made righteous by the obedience of
Christ, by the imputation of it to us, as if we had performed it,
1 Cor. i. 30, Phil. iii. 9 ; therefore we are sinners by the imputation
of the sin of Adam to us, as though we had committed it, which the
apostle also affirms. To what hath been spoken from the consider
ation of that state and condition wherein, by God's appointment, in
reference to all mankind, Adam was placed, namely, of a natural
and political or federal head (of which the apostle treats, 1 Cor. xv.),
and from the loss of that image wherein he was created, whereunto by
Christ we are renewed, many more words like these might be added.

To what hath been spoken there is no need that much should be
added, for the removal of any thing insisted on to the same purpose
with Mr B/s intimations in the Racovian Catechism ; but yet seeing
that that task also is undertaken, that which may seem necessary for
the discharging of what may thence be expected shall briefly be sub
mitted to the reader. To this head they speak in the first chapter,
of the way to salvation, the first question whereof is of the import
ensuing : —

Q. Seeing thou saidst in the beginning that this life which leadeth to immor
tality is divinely revealed, I would know ofthee why thou saidst so?

A. Because as man by nature hath nothing to do with immortality (or hath
no interest in it), so by himself he could by no means know the way which leadeth
to immortality. l

Both question and answer being sophistical and ambiguous, the
sense and intendment of them, as to their application to the matter
in hand, and by them aimed at, is first to be rectified by some few
distinctions, and then the whole will cost us very little farther
trouble : —

1. There is, or hath been, a twofold way to a blessed immortality:
— (1.) The way of perfect obedience to the law ; for he that did it

1 " Cum dixeris initio, hanc viam quas ad immortalitatem ducat esse divinitus pat«-
factam, scire velim cur id abs te dictum sit ? — Propterea, quia ut homo natura nihil
habet commune cum immortalitate, ita earn ipse viam, quae nos ad immortalitatem
duceret, nulla ratione per se cognoscere potuit." — Cat. Rac. de via salut. cap. L

160 VINDICI^: EVANGELICLE.

was to live therein. (2.) The way of faith in the blood of the Son
of God ; for he that believeth shall be saved.

2. Man by nature may be considered two ways: — (1.) As he was in
his created condition, not tainted, corrupted, weakened, nor lost by
sin; (2.) As fallen, dead, polluted, and guilty.

3. Immortality is taken either, (1.) Nakedly and purely in itself
for an eternal abiding of that which is said to be immortal ; or, (2.)
For a blessed condition and state in that abiding and continuance.

4. That expression, " By nature," referring to man in his created
condition, not fallen by sin, may be taken two ways, either, — (1.)
Strictly, for the consequences of the natural principles whereof man
was constituted ; or, (2.) More largely, it comprises God's constitu
tion and appointment concerning man in that estate.

On these considerations it will be easy to take off this head of
our catechists' discourse, whereby also the remaining trunk will fall
to the ground.

I say, then, man by nature, in his primitive condition, was, by the
appointment and constitution of God, immortal as to the continuance
of his life, and knew the way of perfect legal obedience, tending to a
blessed immortality, and that by himself, or by virtue of the law of
his creation, which was concreated with him ; but fallen man, in his
natural condition, being dead spiritually, obnoxious to death tem
poral and eternal, doth by no means know himself, nor can know,
the way of faith in Jesus Christ, leading to a blessed immortality
and glory, Rom. ii. 7-10.

It is not, then, our want of interest in immortality upon the ac
count whereof we know not of ourselves the way to immortality by
the blood of Christ. But there are two other reasons that enforce
the truth of it : —

1 . Because it is a way of mere grace and mercy, hidden from all
eternity in the treasures of God's infinite wisdom and sovereign
will, which he neither prepared for man in his created condition nor
had man any need of ; nor is it in the least discovered by any of the
works of God, nor by the law written in the heart, but is solely reveal
ed from the bosom of the Father by the only-begotten Son, neither
angels nor men being able to discover the least glimpse of that
majesty without that revelation, John i. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii.
8-11; Col. ii. 2, 3; 1 Tim. iil 16.

2. Because man in his fatten condition, though there be retained
in his heart some weak and faint impressions of good and evil, re
ward and punishment, Rom. ii. 14, 15, yet is spiritually dead, blind,
alienated from God, ignorant, dark, stubborn ; so far from being able
of himself to find out the way of grace unto a blessed immortality,
that he is not able, upon the revelation of it, savingly, and to the
great end of its proposal, to receive, apprehend, believe, and walk in

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 161

it, without a new spiritual creation, resurrection from the dead, or
new birth, wrought by the exceeding greatness of the power of God.1
And on these two doth depend our disability to discover and know
the way of grace leading to life and glory. And by this brief re
moval of the covering is the weakness and nakedness of their whole
ensuing discourse so discovered as that I shall speedily take it with
its offence out of the way. They proceed : —

Q. But why hath man nothing to do with (or no interest in) immortality f
A. Therefore, because from the beginning he was formed of the ground, and so
was created mortal ; and then because he transgressed the command given him of
God, and so by the decree of God, expressed in his command, was necessarily
subject to eternal death.*

1. It is true, man was created of the dust of the earth as to his
bodily substance ; yet it is as true that moreover God breathed into
him the breath of life, whereby he became " a living soul," and in
that immediate constitution and framing from the hand of God was
free from all nextly disposing causes unto dissolution. But his im
mortality we place on another account, as hath been declared, which
is no way prejudiced by his being made of the ground.

2. The second reason belongs unto man only as having sinned,
and being fallen out of that condition and covenant wherein he was
created. So that I shall need only to let the reader know that the
eternal death, in the judgment of our catechists, whereunto man was
subjected by sin, was only an eternal dissolution or annihilation (or
rather an abode under dissolution, dissolution itself being not penal),
and not any abiding punishment, as will afterward be farther mani
fest. They go on : —

Q. But how doth this agree with those places of Scripture wherein it is written
that man was created in the image of God, and created unto immortality, and
that death entered into the world by sin, Gen. i. 26 ; Wisd. ii. 23 ; Rom. v. 12 ?

A. As to the testimony which declareth that man was created in the image of
God, it is to be known that the image of God doth not signify immortality
' (which is evident from hence, because at that time when man was subject to eternal
death the Scripture acknowledgeth in him that image, Gen. ix. 6, James iii. 9),
but it denoteth the power and dominion over all things made of God on the earth,
as the same place where this image is treated of clearly showeth, Gen. i. 26.a

1 Eph. ii. 1 ; John i. 5 ; Rom. iii. 17, 18, viii. 7, 8 ; 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; Tit. iii. 3 ; Eph.
ii. 5, iv. 18 ; Col. i. 13, ii. 13, etc,

2 " Cur vero nihil commune babet homo cum immortalitate ? — Idcirco, quod ab initio
de humo formatus, proptereaque mortalis creatus fuerit ; deinde vero, quod mandatum
Dei, ipsi propositum, transgressus sit ; ideoque decreto Dei ipsius in mandate expresso,
seternse morti necessario subjectus fuerit."

3 " Qui vero id conveniet iis Scriptures locis in quibus scriptum extat, hominem ad
imaginem Dei creatum esse, et creatum ad immortalitatem, et quod mors per peccatum
in mundum introierit, Gen. i. 26, 27; Sap. ii. 23 ; Rom. v. 12 ? — Quod ad testimonium
attinet, quod hominem creatum ad imaginem Dei pronunciat, sciendum est, imaginem
Dei non significare immortalitatem (quod hinc patet, quod Scriptura, eo tempore quo
homo aeternse mqrti subjectus erat, agnoscat in homine istam imaginem, Gen. ix. 6, Jacob,
iii. 9), sed potestatem hominis, et dominium in omnes res a Deo conditas, supra terram,
designare ; ut idem locus, in quo de hac eadem imagine agitur, Gen. i. 26, aperte indieat."

VOL. XII. 11

162 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^!.

The argument for that state and condition wherein we affirm man
to have been created from the consideration of the image of God
wherein he was made, and whereunto in part we are renewed, was
formerly insisted on. Let the reader look back unto it, and he will
quickly discern how little is here offered to enervate it in the least ;

for, —

1. They cannot prove that man, in the condition and state of sin,
doth retain any thing of the image of God. The places mentioned,
as Gen. ix. 6, and James iii. 9, testify only that he was made in the
image of God at first, but that he doth still retain the image they
intimate not ; nor is the inference used in the places taken from
what man is, but what he was created.

2. That the image of God did not consist in any one excellency
hath been above declared; so that the argument to prove that it did
not consist in immortality, because it did consist in the dominion
over the creatures, is no better than that would be which should con
clude that the sun did not give light because it gives heat. So
that, —

3. Though the image of God, as to the main of it, in reference to
the end of everlasting communion with God whereunto we were
created, was utterly lost by sin (or else we could not be renewed
unto it again by Jesus Christ), yet as to some footsteps of it, in refer
ence to our fellow-creatures, so much might be and was retained as
to be a reason one towards another for our preservation from wrong
and violence.

4. That place of Gen. L 26, " Let us make man in our image, and
let him have dominion over the fish of the sea," etc., is so far from
proving that the image of God wherein man was created did consist
only in the dominion mentioned, that it doth not prove that domi
nion to have been any part of or to belong unto that image. It is
rather a grant made to them who were made in the image of God
khan a description of that image wherein they were made.

It is evident, then, notwithstanding any thing here excepted to
the contrary, that the immortality pleaded for belonged to the image
of God, and from man's being created therein is rightly inferred ; as
above was made more evident.

Upon the testimony of the Book of Wisdom, it being confessedly
apocryphal, I shall not insist. Neither do I think that in the origi
nal any new argument to that before mentioned of the image of
God is added ; but that is evidently pressed, and the nature of the
image of God somewhat explained. The words are, "Or/ 6 Oto; IKTIGI
rbv avdpuvov lif atpdapffiq, xai tinova r)jg /5/ag /'S/oYjjroj tiroiqetv avr6v'
&86vu ds 5/a£oXou Sayarog «/tf$jX0£v tig rbv xoffftov' qreipdfyvet 81 O.VTOV 01 rqf
txtivov /Atpidog Svres. The opposition that is put between the creation
of man in integrity and the image of God in one verse, and the en-

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 163

trance of sin by the envy of the devil in the next, plainly evinces
that the mind of the author of that book was, that man, by reason
of his being created in the image of God, was immortal in his primi
tive condition. That which follows is of another nature, concerning
which they thus inquire and answer: —

Q. What, moreover, wilt thou answer to the third testimony f

A. The apostle in that place treateth not of immortality [mortality], but of

death itself. But mortality differeth much from death, for a man may be mortal

and yet never die.1

But, — 1. The apostle eminently treats of man's becoming obnoxi
ous to death, which until he was, he was immortal; for he says that
death entered the world by sin, and passed on all men, not actually,
but in the guilt of it and obnoxiousness to it. By what means death
entered into the world, or had a right so to do, by that means man
lost the immortality which before he had.

2. It is true, a man may be mortal as to state and condition, and
yet by almighty power be preserved and delivered from actual dying,
as it was with Enoch and Elijah; but in an ordinary course he that
is mortal must die, and is directly obnoxious to death. But that
which we plead for from those words of the apostle is, that man, by
God's constitution and appointment, was so immortal as not to be
liable or obnoxious to death until he sinned. But they will prove
their assertion in their progress.

Q. What, therefore, is the sense of these words, " that death entered into the
world by sin?"

A, This, that Adam for sin, by the decree and sentence of God, was subject to
eternal death ; and therefore all men, because (or inasmuch as) they are born of
him, are subject to the same eternal death. And that this is so, the comparison
of Christ with Adam, which the apostle instituteth from verse 12 to the end of the
chapter, doth declare.1

1 . Be it so that this is the meaning of those words ; yet hence it
inevitably follows that man was no way liable or obnoxious to death
but upon the account of the commination of God annexed to the
law he gave him. And this is the whole of what we affirm, — namely,
that by God's appointment man was immortal, and the tenure of his
immortality was his obedience, and thereupon his right thereunto he
lost by his transgression.

2. This is farther evident from the comparison between Christ and
Adam, instituted by the apostle; for as we are all dead without

1 " Quid porro ad tertium respondeois ? — Apostolus co in loco non agit de immor-
talitate [mortalitate], verum de morte ipsa. Mortalitas vero a morte multum dissidet;
siquidem potest esse quis mortalis, nee tamen unquam mori."

2 " Quse igitur est horum verborum sententia, quod mors per peccalum introieril in
mundum ? — Hgec, quod Adamus ob peccatum, decreto et sententia Dei, seternae morti
subjectus est ; proinde, omnes homines, eo quod ex eo nati sunt, eidem seternae morti
subjaceant. Bern ita esse, collatio Christi cum Adamo, quam apostolus eodcm capite, a
Ter. 12 ad finem, instituit, indicio est."

164. VINDICLffi EVANGELICAL

Christ and his righteousness, -and have not the least right to life or a
blessed immortality, so antecedently to the consideration of Adam
and his disobedience, we were not in the least obnoxious unto death,
or any way liable to it in our primitive condition.

And this is all that our catechists have to plead for themselves, or
to except against our arguments and testimonies to the cause in
hand ; which how weak it is in itself, and how short it comes of
reaching to the strength we insist on, a little comparison of it with
what went before will satisfy the pious reader.

What remains of that chapter, consisting in the depravation of two
or three texts of Scripture to another purpose than that in hand, I
shall not divert to the consideration of, seeing it will more orderly
fall under debate in another place.

What our catechists add elsewhere about original sin, or their at
tempt to disprove it, being considered, shall give a close to this dis
course.

Their lOfeh chapter is, "De libero arbitrio;" where, after, in answer
to the first question proposed, they have asserted that it is in our
power to yield obedience unto God, as having free will in our crea
tion so to do, and having by no way or means lost that liberty or
power, their second question is, —

Q. Is not this free will corrupted by original sin ?

A. There is no such thing as Anginal sin, wherefore that cannot vitiate free
•will, nor can that original sin be proved out of the Scripture ; and the fall of
Adam, being but one act, could not have that force as to corrupt his own nature,
much less that of his posterity. And that it was inflicted on him as a punishment
neither doth the Scripture teach, and it is incredible that God, who is the fountain
of all goodness, would so do.1

1. This is yet plain dealing; and it is well that men who know
neither God nor themselves have yet so much honesty left as to'
speak downright what they intend. Quickly despatched ! — " There
is no such thing as original sin." To us, the denying of it is one argu
ment to prove it. Were not men blind and dead in sin, they could
not but be sensible of it; but men swimming with the water feel
not the strength of the stream.

2. But doth the Scripture teach no such thing? Doth it nowhere
teach that we, who were " created upright, in the image of God, are
now dead in trespasses and sins, by nature children of wrath, having
the wrath of God upon us, being blind in our understandings, and
alienated from the life of God, not able to receive the things that

? " Nonne peccato originis hoc liberum arbitrium vitiatum est ? — Peccatum originis
nullum prorsus est : quare nee liberum arbitrium vitiare potuit, nee enim e Scriptura
id peccatum originis doceri potest ; et lapsus Adse cum unus actus fuerit, vim earn quse
depravare ipsam naturam Adami, multo minus vcro posterorum ipsius posset, habere
non potuit. Jpsi vero in poenam irrogatum fuisse, nee Scriptura docet, uti superius
exposuimus ; et Deum ilium, qui omnis aequitatis fons est, incredibile prorsus est, id
facere voluisse." — Cap. x. de lib- arbit. q. 2.

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFOEE AND AFTER THE FALL. 1 65

•are of God, which are spiritually discerned, our carnal minds being
enmity to God, not subject to his law, nor can be; that our hearts
are stony, our affections sensual ; that we are wholly come short of
the glory of God ; that every figment of our heart is evil, so that
we can neither think, nor speak, nor do that which is spiritually
good or acceptable to God; that being born of the flesh, we are flesh,
and unless we are born again, can by no means enter into the king
dom of heaven; that all this is come upon us by the sin of one
man, whence also judgment passed on all men to condemnation?"
Can nothing of all this be proved from the Scripture? These gentle
men know that we contend not about words or expressions. Let
them grant this hereditary corruption of our nature, alienation from
God, impotency to good, deadness and obstinacy in sin, want of
the Spirit, image, and grace of God, with obnoxiousness thereon
to eternal condemnation, and give us a fitter expression to declare
this state and condition by in respect of every one's personal interest
therein, and we will, so it may please them, call it " original sin" no
more.

3. It is not impossible that one act should be so high and intense
in its kind as to induce a habit into the subject, and so Adam's na
ture be vitiated by it ; and he begot a son in his own likeness. The
devils upon one sin became obstinate in all the wickedness that their
nature is capable of. (2.) This one act was a breach of covenant with
God, upon the tenor and observation whereof depended the enjoy
ment of all that strength and rectitude with God wherewith, by
the law of his creation, man was endued. (3.) All man's covenant
good, for that eternal end to which he was created, depended upon
his conformity to God, his subjection to him, and dependence on him ;
all which, by that one sin, he wilfully cast away for himself and pos
terity (whose common, natural, and federal head he was), and right
eously fell into that condition which we have described. (4.) The
apostle is much of a different mind from our catechists, Rom. v.
15, 16, etc., as hath been declared.

4. What is credible concerning God and his goodness with these
gentlemen I know not. To me, that is not only in itself credibk
which he hath revealed concerning himself, but of necessity to be
believed. That he gave man a law, threatening him, and all his pos
terity in him and with him, with eternal death upon the breach of
it; that upon that sin he cast all mankind judicially out of covenant,
imputing that sin unto them all unto the guilt of condemnation,
seeing it is " his judgment that they who commit sin are worthy of
death;" and that "he is of purer eyes than to behold evil," — is to
us credible, yea, as was said, of necessity to be believed. But they
will answer the proofs that are produced from Scripture in the as
serting of this original sin.

166 VINDICI^ EVANGELIC^.

Q. But that there is original sin these testimonies seem to prove: Gen. vi. 5,
" Every cogitation of the heart of man is only evil every day ;" and Gen. viii. 21,
" The cogitation of man's heart is evil from his youth f"

A. These testimonies deal concerning voluntary sin ; from them, therefore, ori
ginal sin cannot be proved. As for the first, Moses showeth it to be such a sin
for whose sake God repented him that* he had made man, and decreed to destroy
him with a flood ; which certainly can by no means be affirmed concerning a sin
which should be in man by nature, such as they think original sin to be. In
the other, he showeth that the sin of man shall not have that efficacy that God
should punish the world for it with a flood; which by no means agreeth to origi
nal sin.1

That this attempt of our catechists is most vain and frivolous will
quickly appear; for, — 1. Suppose original sin be not asserted in those
places, doth it follow there is no original sin? Do they not know
that we affirm it to be revealed in the way of salvation, and proved
by a hundred places besides? And do they think to overthrow it by
their exception against two or three of them, when if it be taught in
any one of them it suffices? 2. The words, as by them rendered,
lose much of the efficacy for the confirmation of what they oppose
which in the original they have. In the first place, it is not, " Every
thought of man's heart," but, " Every imagination or figment of the
thoughts of his heart." The " motus primo primi," the very natural
frame and temper of the heart of man, as to its first motions towards
good or evil, are doubtless expressed in these words. So also is it in
the latter place.

We say, then, that original sin is taught and proved in these
places; not singly or exclusively to actual sins, not a parte ante, or
from the causes of it, but from its effects. That such a frame of
heart is so universally by nature in all mankind, and in every indi
vidual of them, as that it is ever, always, or continually, casting, coin
ing, and devising evil, and that only, without the intermixture of any
thing of another kind that is truly and spiritually good, is taught in
these places ; and this is original sin. Nor is this disproved by our
catechists; for, —

1. " Because the sin spoken of is voluntary, therefore it is not ori
ginal," will not be granted. (1.) Original sin, as it is taken peccatum
originans, was voluntary in Adam ; and as it is originatum in us is in
our wills habitually, and not against them, in any actings of it or
them. (2.) The effects of it, in the coining of sin and in the thoughts of
men's hearts, are all voluntary; which are here mentioned to demon
strate and manifest that root from whence they spring, that prevail-

* " Veruntamen esse peccatum originis ilia testimonia docere videntur, Gen. vi. 5,
etc., viii. 21. — Haec testimonia agunt de peccato voluntario ; ex iis-itaque effici nequit
peccatum originis. Quod autem ad primum attinet, Moses id peccatum ejusmodi fuisse
docet cujus causa poenituisse Deum quod hominem creasset, et eum diluvio punire de-
crevisset ; quod certe de peccato quod homini natura inesset, quale peccatum originis
censeat, affirmari nullo pacto potest. In altero vero testimonio docet, peccatum homi-
nis earn vim habiturum non esse, ut Deus mundum diluvio propter illud puniret ; quod
etiam peccato originis nullo modo convenit."

OF MAN'S CONDITION BEFORE AND AFTER THE FALL. 167

ing principle and predominant habit from whence they so uniformly
proceed.

2. Why it doth not agree to original sin that the account [is] men
tioned, verse 6, of God's repenting that he had made man, and his
resolution to destroy him, these gentlemen offer not one word of rea
son to manifest. We say, — (1.) That it can agree to no other but
this original sin, with its infallible effects, wherein all mankind were
equally concerned, and so became equally liable to the last judgment
of God ; though some, from the same principle, had acted much more
boldly against his holy Majesty than others. (2.) Its being in men
by nature doth not at all lessen its guilt. It is not in their nature as
created, nor in them so by nature, but is by the fall of Adam come
upon the nature of all men, dwelling in the person of every one;
which lesseneth not its guilt, but manifests its advantage for provo
cation.

3. Why the latter testimony is not applicable to original sin they
inform us not. The words joined with it are an expression of that
patience and forbearance which God resolved and promised to exer
cise towards the world, with a non obstante for sin. Now, what sin
should this be but that which is " the sin of the world"? That actual
sins are excluded we say not; but that original sin is expressed and
aggravated by the effects of it our catechists cannot disprove. There
are many considerations of these texts, from whence the argument
from them for the proof of that corruption of nature which we call
original sin might be much improved ; but that is not my present
business, our catechists administering no occasion to such a discourse.
But they take some other texts into consideration: —

Q. What thinkest thou of that which David speaks, Ps. li. 7, " Behold, I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me f "

A. It is to be observed that David doth not here speak of any men but himself
alone, nor that simply, but with respect to his fall, and uses that form of speaking
which you have in him again, Ps. Iviii. 3. Wherefore original sin cannot be
evinced by this testimony.1

But, — ] . Though David speaks of himself, yet he speaks of himself
in respect of that which was common to himself with all mankind,
being a child of wrath as well as others ; nor can these gentlemen
intimate any thing of sin and iniquity, in the conception and birth
of David, that was not common to all others with him. Any man's
confession for himself of a particular guilt in a common sin doth not
free others from it; yea; it proves all others to be partakers in it
who share in that condition wherein he contracted the guilt.

1 " Quid vero ea de re sentis quod David ait, Ps. li. 7 ? — Animadvertendum est, hie
Davidem non agere de quibusvis hominibus, sed de se tantum, nee simpliciter, sed
habita ratione lapsus sui ; et eo loquendi modo usum esse, cujus exemplum apud eun-
dem Davidem habes Ps. Iviii. 3. Quamobrem nee eo testimonia effici prorsus potest
peccatum originis."

168 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

2. Though David mentions this by occasion of his fall, as Tiaving
his conscience made tender and awakened to search into the root of
his sin and transgression thereby, yet it was no part of his fall, nor
was he ever the more or less conceived in sin and brought forth in
iniquity for that fall ; which were ridiculous to imagine. He here
acknowledges it upon the occasion of his fall, which was a fruit of
the sin wherewith he was born, James i. 14, 15, but was equally
guilty of it before his fall and after.

3. The expression here used, and that of Ps. Iviii. 3, " The wicked
are estranged from the womb, they go astray as soon as they be born,
speaking lies," exceedingly differ. Here, David expresses what was
his infection in the womb ; there, what is wicked men's constant prac
tice from the womb. In himself, he mentions the root of all actual
sin ; in them, the constant fruit that springs from that root in unre-
generate men. So that, by the favour of these catechists, I yet say
that David doth here acknowledge a sin of nature, a sin wherewith
he was defiled from his conception, and polluted when he was
warmed, and so fomented in his mother's womb ; and therefore this
place doth prove original sin.

One place more they call to an account, in these words: —

Q. But Paul saith that " in Adam all sinned" Rom. v. 12.

A. It is not in that place, " In Adam all sinned ;" but in the Greek the words
are Ip* *>, which interpreters do frequently render in Latin in quo, " in whom,"
which yet may be rendered by the particles quoniam or quatenus, " because," or
"inasmuch," as in like places, Rom. viii. 3. Phil. iii. 12, Heb. ii. 18, 2 Cor. v. 4.
It appeareth, therefore, that neither can original sin be built up out of this place.1

1. Stop these men from this shifting hole, and you may with much
ease entangle and catch them twenty times a day: " This word may
be rendered otherwise, for it is so in another place," — a course of pro
cedure that leaves nothing certain in the book of God. 2. In two
of the places cited, the words are not !f>* $, but Iv w, Rom. viii. 3,
Heb. ii. 18. 3. The places are none of them parallel to this; for
here, the apostle speaks of persons or a person in an immediate pre
cedency; in them, of things. 4. But render tfi c5 by quoniam, "be
cause," or " for that," as our English translation doth, the argument
is no less evident for original sin than if they were rendered by " in
whom." In the beginning of the verse the apostle tells us that
death entered the world by the sin of one man, — that one man of
whom he is speaking, namely, Adam, — and passed upon all men : of
which dispensation, that death passed on all men, he gives you the
reason in these words, " For that all have sinned;" that is, in that

1 " At Paulus ait Bom. v. 12, In Adamo, etc — Non habetur eo loco, In Adamo ornnet
pecc&sse ; verum in Grseco verba sunt itp' », quse passim interpretes reddunt Latine, in
quo, quse tamen reddi possunt per particulas quoniam aut quatmus, ut e locis simili-
bns. Rom. viii. 3, Phil. iii. 12, Heb. ii. 18. 2 Cor. v. 4, videro est. Apparet igitur
neque ex hoc loco extrui posse peocatum originis."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST.

sin of that one man whereby death entered on the world and passed
on them all. I wonder how our catechists could once imagine that
this exception against the translation of those words should enervate
the argument from the text for the proof of all men's guilt of the
first sin, seeing the conviction of it is no less evident from the words
if rendered according to their desire.

And this is the sum of what they have to offer for the acquitment
of themselves from the guilt and stain of original sin, and for answer
to the three testimonies on its behalf which themselves chose to call
forth; upon the strength whereof they so confidently reject it at the
entrance of their discourse, arid in the following question triumph
upon it, as a thing utterly discarded from the thoughts of their cate
chumens. What reason or ground they have for their confidence
the reader will judge. In the meantime, it is sufficiently known
that they have touched very little of the strength of our cause, nor
once mentioned the testimonies and arguments on whose evidence
and strength in this business we rely. And for themselves who
write and teach these things, I should much admire their happiness,
did I not so much as I do pity them in their pride and distemper,
keeping them from an acquaintance with their own miserable con
dition.

CHAPTER VII.

Of the person of Jesus Christ, and on what account he is the Son of God.

MR BIDDLE'S FOURTH CHAPTER.

Ques. How many Lords of Christians are there, by way of distinction from
that one God ?

Ans. Eph. iv. 5.

Q. Who is that one Lord ?

A. 1 Cor. viii. 6.

Q. How was Jesus Christ bornf ,

A. Matt. i. 18; Luke i. 30-35.

Q. How came Jesus Christ to be Lord, according to the opinion of the apostle
Paul?

A. Rom. xiv. 9.

Q. What saith the apostle Peter also concerning the time and manner of his
being made Lord ?

A. Acts ii. 32, 33, 36.

Q. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his miracles; and did
he not those miracles by a divine nature of his own, and because he was God him
self? What is the determination of the apostle Peter in this behalf?

A. Acts ii. 22, x. 38.

Q. Could not Christ do all things of himself ; and was it not an eternal Son
of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the human nature of Christ was
personally united, that wrought all his works ? Answer me to these things in the
words of the Son himself.

A. John v. 19, 20, 30, xiv. 10.

170 VINDICIJE EVANGELIC^.

Q. What reason doth the Son render why the Father did not forsake him
and cast him out of favour? Was it because he was of the same essence with
him, so that it was impossible for the Father to forsake him or cease to love
him?

A. John viii. 28, 29, xv. 9, 10.

Q. Doth the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was
eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him
only as a man ? Rehearse the passages to this purpose.

A. Luke i. 30, 32, 34, 35; Johnx. 36; Acts xiii. 32, 33; Eev. i. 5; Col. i. 18;
Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5; Horn. viii. 29.

Q. What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of God the Father
above him f

A. John xiv. 28; Mark xiii. 32; Matt. xxiv. 36.

Q. What saith the apostle Paul f

A. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23

Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified, as with the title of Lord, so also with that
of God, in the Scripture ?

A. John xx. 28.

Q. Was he so the God of Thomas as that he himself in the meantime did not
acknowledge another to be his God ?

A. John xx. 17; Rev. iii. 12.

Q. Have you any passage of the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that
he hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God?

A. Heb. i. 8, 9.

EXAMINATION.

The aim and design of our catechist in this chapter being to de
spoil our blessed Lord Jesus Christ of his eternal deity, and to substi
tute an imaginary Godhead, made and feigned in the vain hearts of
himself and his masters, into the room thereof, I hope the discovery
of the wickedness and vanity of his attempt will not be unacceptable
to them who love him in sincerity. I must still desire the reader
not to expect the handling of the doctrine of the deity of Christ at
large, with the confirmation of it and vindication from the vain
sophisms wherewith by others, as well as by Mr B., it hath been
opposed. This is done abundantly by other hands. In the next
chapter that also will have its proper place, in the vindication of
many texts of Scripture from the exceptions of the Racovians. The
removal of Mr B/s sophistry, and the disentangling of weaker souls,
who may in any thing be intricated by his queries, are my present
intendment. To make our way clear and plain, that every one that
runs may read the vanity of Mr B/s undertaking against the Lord
Jesus, and his kicking against the pricks therein, I desire to pre
mise these few observations : —

1. Distinction of persons (it being an infinite substance) doth no
way prove difference of essence between the Father and the Son.
Where Christ, as mediator, is said to be another from the Father or
God, spoken personally of the Father, it argues not in the least that
he is not partaker of the same nature with him. That in one essence

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 171

there can be but one person may be true where the substance is
finite and limited, but hath no place in that which is infinite.

2. Distinction and inequality in respect of office in Christ doth
not in the least take away equality and sameness with the Father
in respect of nature and essence.1 A son of the same nature with
his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior,
his subject.

3. The advancement and exaltation of Christ as mediator to any
dignity whatever, upon or in reference to the work of our redemp
tion and salvation, is not at all inconsistent with that essential a£/a,
honour, dignity, and worth, which he hath in himself as "God blessed
for ever." Though he humbled himself and was exalted, yet in na
ture he was one and the same, he changed not.

4. The Scripture's asserting the humanity of Christ with the con
cernments thereof, as his birth, life, and death, doth no more thereby
deny his deity, than, by asserting his deity, with the essential pro
perties thereof, eternity, omniscience, and the like, it denies his
humanity.

5. God's working any thing in and by Christ, as he was mediator,
denotes the Father's sovereign appointment of the things mentioned
to be done, not his immediate efficiency in the doing of the things
themselves.

The consideration of these few things, being added to what I have
said before in general about the way of dealing with our adversaries
in these great and weighty things of the knowledge of God, will
easily deliver us from any great trouble in the examination of Mr
B.'s arguments and insinuations against the deity of Christ; which
is the business of the present chapter.

His first question is, " How many Lords of Christians are there,
by way of distinction from that one God?" and he answers, Eph.
iv. 5, " One Lord."

That of these two words there is not one that looks towards the
confirmation of what Mr B. chiefly aims at in the question proposed,
is, I presume, sufficiently clear in the light of the thing itself inquired
after. Christ, it is true, is the one Lord of Christians ; and therefore
God, equal with the Father. He is also one Lord in distinction from
his Father, as his Father, in respect of his personality, in which re
gard there are three that bear record in heaven, of which he is one ;
but in respect of essence and nature " he and his Father are one."
Farther; unless he were one God with his Father, it is utterly im
possible he should be the one Lord of Christians. That he cannot
be our Lord in the sense intended, whom we ought to invocate and
worship, unless also he were our God, shall be afterward declared.

1 Triv t/faraytiv rns 5»fX/*5]f ftafQvs avj/Xw^aif, vvrip fiftuv ufaraffftrtti riu lettirau

tv <fufu 9-i«T»!Taf, «xx' \iufit popifii; SouX/xS; «» i'XaSi. — Atbanas. Dial. i. contra Maced.

172 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

And although he be our Lord in distinction from his Father, as he
is also our mediator, yet he is " the same God " with him " which
worketh all in all," 1 Cor. xii. 6. His being Lord, then, distinctly in
respect of his mediation hinders not his being God in respect of his
participation in the same nature with his Father. And though here
. he be not spoken of in respect of his absolute, sovereign lordship,
but of his lordship over the church, to whom the whole church is
spiritually subject (as he is elsewhere also so called on the same ac
count, as John xiii. 13 ; Acts vii. 59 ; Rev. xxii. 20), yet were he
not Lord in that sense also, he could not be so in this. The Lord
our God only is to be worshipped. " My Lord and my God," says
Thomas. And the mention of "one God" is here, as in other places,
partly to deprive all false gods of their pretended deity, partly to
witness against the impossibility of polytheism, and partly to mani
fest the oneness of them who are worshipped as God the Father.
Word, and Spirit : all which things are also severally testified unto.

His second question is an inquiry after this Lord, who he is, in
these words, " Who is that one Lord ?" and the answer is from 1 Cor.
viii. 6, " Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." The close of this
second answer might have caused Mr B. a little to recoil upon his
insinuation in the first, concerning the distinction of this "one Lord"
from that " one God," in the sense by him insisted on. Who is he
"by whom are all things" (in the same sense as they are said to be
"of" the Father) ? who is that but God ? " He that made all things
is God," Heb. iii. 4. And it is manifest that he himself was not made
by whom all things were made : for he made not himself, nor
could so do, unless he were both before and after himself; nor was
he made without his own concurrence by another, for by himself are
all things. Thus Mr B. hath no sooner opened his mouth to speak
against the Lord Jesus Christ, but, by the just judgment of God, he
stops it himself with a testimony of God against himself, which he
shall never be able to rise up against unto eternity.

And it is a manifest perverting and corrupting of the text which
we have in Grotius' gloss upon the place, who interprets the ra
iravra, referred to the Father of all things simply, but the ra cravra
referred to Christ of the things only of the new creation,1 there
being not the least colour for any such variation, the frame and
structure of the words requiring them to be expounded uniformly
throughout : " But to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him." " The last expression, ' And we by him/
relates to the new creation ; * All things/ to the first." But Grotius
follows Enjedinus in this as well as other things.2

1 Grot. Annot. in 1 Cor. viii. 6.

* Enjedin. Explicat. loc. Vet. et Nov. Testam. in locum.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 1 73

His inquiry in the next place is after the birth of Jesus Christ; in
answer whereunto the story is reported from Matthew and Luke ;
which relating to his human nature, and no otherwise to the person
of the Son of God but as he was therein " made flesh," or assumed the
"holy thing" so born of the Virgin, Lukei. 35, into personal subsistence
with himself, I shall let pass with annexing unto it the observation
before mentioned, namely, that what is affirmed of the human nature
of Christ doth not at all prejudice that nature of his in respect
whereof he is said to be " in the beginning with God," and to be
"God," and with reference whereunto himself said, "Before Abraham
was I am," John i. 1, 2, viii. 58; Prov. viii. 22, etc. God "possessed
him in the beginning of his way," being then his "only-begotten Son,
full of grace and truth." Mr B. indeed hath small hopes of despoil
ing Christ of his eternal glory by his queries, if they spend themselves
in such fruitless sophistry as this : — " Q. 4. How came Jesus Christ
to be Lord according to the opinion of the apostle Paul?" The
answer is, Rom. xiv. 9. " Q. 5. What saith the apostle Peter also
concerning the time and manner of his being made Lord? — A. Acts
ii. 32, 33, 36."

Ans. 1. That Jesus Christ as mediator, and in respect of the work
of redemption and salvation of the church to him committed, was
made Lord by the appointment, authority, and designation of his
Father, we do not say was the opinion of Paul, but is such a divine
truth as we have the plentiful testimony of the Holy Ghost unto.
He was no less made a Lord than a Priest and Prophet, of his
Father. But that the eternal lordship of Christ, as he is one with
his Father, " God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5, is any way de
nied by the asserting of this lordship given him of his Father as
mediator, Mr B. wholly begs of men to apprehend and grant, but
doth not once attempt from the Scripture to manifest or prove. The
sum of what Mr B. intends to argue hence is : Christ "submitting him
self to the form and work of a servant unto the Father, was exalted
by him, and had ' a name given him above every name ;' therefore he
was not the Son of God and equal to him." That his condescension
unto office is inconsistent with his divine essence is yet to be proved.
But may we not beg of our catechist, at his leisure, to look a little
farther into the chapter from whence he takes his first testimony
concerning the exaltation of Christ to be Lord ? perhaps it may be
worth his while. As another argument to that of the dominion and
lordship of Christ, to persuade believers to a mutual forbearance as
to judging of one another, he adds, verse 10, " We shall all stand
before the judgment-seat of Christ." And this, verse 11, the apostle
proves from that testimony of the prophet Isaiah, chap. xlv. 23, as he
renders the sense of the Holy Ghost, " As I live, saith the Lord,
eyery knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

17 4s VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

So that Jesus Christ our Lord is that Jehovah, that God, to whom
all subjection is due, and in particular that of standing before his
judgment-seat. But this is overlooked by Grotius, and not answered
to any purpose by Enjedinus, and why should Mr B. trouble himself
with it ?

2. For the time assigned by him of his being made Lord, specified
by the apostle, it doth not denote his first investiture with that office
and power, but the solemn admission into the glorious execution of
that lordly power which was given him as mediator. At his incar
nation and birth, God affirms by the angel that he was then " Christ
the Lord," Luke ii. 11. And when " he brought his first-begotten
into the world, the angels were commanded to worship him ;" which
if he were not a Lord, I suppose Mr B. will not say they could have
done. Yea, and as he was both believed in and worshipped before
his death and resurrection, John ix. 38, xiv. 1, which is to be per
formed only to the Lord our God, Matt. iv. 10, so he actually in
some measure exercised his lordship towards and over angels, men,
devils, and the residue of the creation, as is known from the very
story of the Gospel, not denying himself to be a king, yea, witness
ing thereunto when he was to be put to death, Luke xxiii. 3, John
xviii. 37, as he was from his first showing unto men, chap. i. 49.

" Q. 6. Did not Jesus Christ approve himself to be God by his
miracles ; and did he not those miracles by a divine nature of his
own, and because he was God himself? What is the determination
of the apostle Peter in this behalf ?— A Acts ii. 22, x. 38."

The intend ment of Mr B. in this question, as is evident by his
inserting of these words in a different character, "By a divine nature
of his own, and because he was God himself/' is to disprove or in
sinuate an answer unto the argument taken from the miracles that
Christ did to confirm his deity. The naked working of miracles, I
confess, without the influence of such other considerations as this
argument is attended withal in relation to Jesus Christ, will not
alone of itself assert a divine nature in him who is the instrument
of their working or production. Though they are from divine power,
or they are not miracles, yet it is not necessary that he by whom
they are wrought should be possessor of that divine power, as " by
whom" may denote the instrumental and not the principal cause oi
them. But for the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ, as God is said
to do them "by him," because he appointed him to do them, as he
designed him to his offices, and thereby gave testimony to the truth
of the doctrine he preached from his bosom as also because he was
" with him," not in respect of power and virtue, but as the Father in
the Son, John x. 38 ; so he working these miracles by his own power
and at his own will, even as his Father doth, chap. v. 21, and him
self giving power and authority to others to work miracles by his

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 175

strength and in his name, Matt. x. 8, Mark xvi. 17, 18, Luke x. 19,
there is that eminent evidence of his deity in his working of mira
cles as Mr B. can by no means darken or obscure by pointing to
that which is of a clear consistency therewithal, — as is his Father's
appointment of him to do them, whereby he is said to do them " in
his name," etc., as in the place cited, of which afterward. Acts ii. 22,
the intendment of Peter is, to prove that he was the Messiah of
whom he spake; and therefore he calls him "Jesus of Nazareth," as
pointing out the man whom they knew by that name, and whom,
seven or eight weeks before, they had crucified and rejected. That
this man was "approved of God,"1 he convinces them from the
miracles which God wrought by him ; which was enough for his pre
sent purpose. Of the other place there is another reason ; for though
Grotius expounds these words, "On 6 Qils fa per auroD, "For God was
with him," "God always loved him, and always heard him, according
to Matt. iii. 17" (where yet there is a peculiar testimony given to the
divine sonship of Jesus Christ) " and John xi. 42," yet the words of
our Saviour himself about the same business give us another inter
pretation and sense of them. This, I say, he does, John x. 37, 38,
" If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do,
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know, and
believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." In the doing of
these works, the Father was so with him as that he was in him, and
he in the Father; not only evtpyqnKus, but by that divine indwelling
which oneness of nature gives to Father and Son.

His seventh question is exceeding implicate and involved : a great
deal is expressed that Mr B. would deny, but by what inference from
the scriptures he produceth doth not at all appear. The words of
it are, " Could not Christ do all things of himself; and was it not an
eternal Son of God that took flesh upon him, and to whom the
human nature of Christ was personally united, that wrought all
these works ? Answer me to these things in the words of the Son
himself.— A. John v. 19, 20, 30, xiv. 10."

The inference which alone appears from hence is of the same
nature with them that are gone before. That Christ could not do
all things of himself, that he was not the eternal Son of God, that
he took not flesh, is that which is asserted ; but the proof of all this
doth disappear. Christ being accused by the Jews, and persecuted
for healing a man on the Sabbath-day, and their rage being in
creased by his asserting his equality with the Father (of which after-
ward), John v. 17, 18, he lets them know that in the discharge of the
office committed to him he did nothing but according to the will,
commandment, and appointment, of his Father, with whom he is

1 'AtfoSt^ii-yfiivov, i. C., o'lat /u.ti dft,<piff£ti<rovfttvov, «XX* avr^i^ttyftinoii J;a ruv 'ipyuv uv i
alrou o Qios, ori dva 6i»v nv. — GlUJC. Schol.

176 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

equal, and doth of his own will also the things that he doth ; so that
they had no more to plead against him for doing what he did than
they had against him whom they acknowledged to be God : wherein
he is so far from declining the assertion of his own deity (which that
he maintained the Jews apprehended, affirming that he made him
self equal with God, which none but God is or can be, for between
God and that which is not God there is no proportion, much less
equality) as that he farther confirms it, by affirming that he "doeth
whatever the Father doeth, and that as the Father quickeneth whom
he will, so he quickeneth whom he will." That redoubled assertion,
then, of Christ, that he can do nothing of himself, is to be applied
to the matter under consideration. He had not done, nor could do,
any work but such as his Father did also ; it was impossible he
should, not only because he would not (in which sense rb dZovXqrov
is one kind of those things which are impossible), but also because of
the oneness in will, nature, and power, of himself and his Father,
which he asserts in many particulars. Nor doth he temper his
speech as one that would ascribe all the honour to the Father, and
so remove the charge that he made a man equal to the Father, as
Grotius vainly imagines j1 for although as man he acknowledges his
subjection to the Father, yea, as mediator in the work he had in
hand, and his subordination to him as the Son, receiving all things
from him by divine and eternal communication, yet the action or
work that gave occasion to that discourse being an action of his
person, wherein he was God, he all along asserts his own equality
therein with the Father, as shall afterward be more fully mani
fested.

So that though in regard of his divine personality as the Son he
hath all things from the Father, being begotten by him, and as
mediator doth all things by his appointment and in his name, yet
he in himself is still one with the Father as to nature and essence,
" God to be blessed for evermore." And that it was "an eternal Son
of God that took flesh upon him/' etc., hath Mr. B. never read that
" in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God," that " the
Word was made flesh ;" that " God was manifested in the flesh;"
and that " God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under
the law?" of which places afterward, in their vindication from the
exceptions of his masters.

His eighth question is of the very same import with that going
before, attempting to exclude Jesus Christ from the unity of essence
with his Father, by his obedience to him, and his Father's accepta
tion of him in the work of mediation; which being a most ridiculous

1 " Semper ea quae de se praedicare cogitur Christus, ita temperat ut omnem honorera
referat ad Patrem, et removeat illud crimen, quasi hominem Patri sequalem faciat." —
Grot. Annot. in Johan. cap. T. 30.

OF THE PEESON OF JESUS CHRIST. ] 77

begging of the thing in question, as to what he pretends in the
query to be argumentative, I shall not farther insist upon it.

Q. 9. We are come to the head of this discourse, and of Mr B/s
design in this chapter, and, indeed, of the greatest design that he
drives in religion, namely, the denial of the eternal deity of the
Son of God ; which not only in this place directly, but in sundry
others covertly, he doth invade and oppose. His question is, " Doth
the Scripture account Christ to be the Son of God because he was
eternally begotten out of the divine essence, or for other reasons
agreeing to him only as a man? Rehearse the passages to this pur
pose." His answer is from Luke i. 31-35; John x. 36; Acts xiii.
32, 33; Eev. i. 5; Col. i. 18; Heb. i. 4, 5, v. 5; Rom. viii. 29; most
of which places are expressly contrary to him in his design, as the
progress of our discourse will discover.

This, I say, being the head of the difference between us in this
chapter, after I have rectified one mistake in Mr B/s question, I
shall state the whole matter so as to obviate farther labour and
trouble about sundry other ensuing queries. For Mr B/s question,
then, we say not that the Son is begotten eternally out of the divine
essence, but in it, not by an eternal act of the Divine Being, but of
the person of the Father ; which being premised, I shall proceed.

The question that lies before us is, " Doth the Scripture account
Christ to be the Son of God because he was eternally begotten out
of the divine essence, or for other reasons agreeing to him only as a
man? Rehearse the passages to this purpose/'

The reasons, as far as I can gather, which Mr B. lays at the bottom
of this appellation, are, — 1. His birth of the Virgin, from Luke i.
30-35. 2. His mission, or sending into the world by the Father,
John x. 36. 3. His resurrection with power, Acts xiii. 32, 33; Rev.
i. 5; CoL i. 18. 4. His exaltation, Heb. v. 5; Rom. viii. 29.

For the removal of all this from prejudicing the eternal sonship
of Jesus Christ there is an abundant sufficiency, arising from the
consideration of this one argument: If Jesus Christ be called the
"Son of God" antecedently to his incarnation, mission, resurrection,
and exaltation, then there is a reason and cause of that appellation
before and above all these considerations, and it cannot be on any of
these accounts that he is called the " Son of God ;" but that he is so
called antecedently to all these, I shall afterward abundantly mani
fest. Yet a little farther process in this business, as to the particu
lars intimated, may not be unseasonable.

First, then, I shall propose the causes on the account whereof alone
these men affirm that Jesus Christ is called the " Son of God." Of
these the first and chiefest they insist upon is his birth of the Virgin,
— namely, that he was called the " Son of God" because he was con
ceived of the Holy Ghost. This our catechist in the first place pro-

VOL. XIL 12

178 VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

poses; and before him, his masters. So the Kacovians, in answer to
that question, " Is therefore the Lord Jesus a mere man?" answer,
" By no means: for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of
the Virgin; and therefore from his birth and conception was the
Son of God, as we read in Luke i. 35;"1 — the place insisted on by
the gentleman we are dealing withal.

Of the same mind are the residue of their companions. So do
Ostorodius and Voidovius give an account of their faith in their
" Compendium," as they call it, " of the Doctrine of the Christian
Church flourishing now chiefly in Poland." " They teach/' say they,
" Jesus Christ to be that man that was conceived of the Holy Ghost,
and born of the Virgin ; besides and before whom they acknowledge no
only-begotten Son of God truly existing. Moreover, they teach him
to be God, and the only-begotten Son of God, by reason of his con
ception of the Holy Ghost," etc.8 Smalcius hath written a whole
book of the true divinity of Jesus Christ ; wherein he hath gathered
together whatever excellencies they will allow to be ascribed unto
him, making his deity to be the exurgency of them all. Therefore
is he God, and the Son of God, because the things he there treats of
are ascribed unto him ! Among these, in his third chapter, which is
" Of the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ," he gives this princi
pal account why he is called the "Son of God," even from his concep
tion and nativity. " He was," saith he, " conceived of the Holy Ghost,
and born of the Virgin Mary; because of which manner of concep
tion and nativity he was by the angel called the 'Son of God/ and
so may really be called the ' natural Son of God/ because he was
born such. Only, Jesus Christ was brought forth to light by God
his Father without the help of man."8

The great master of the herd himself, from whom, indeed, the rest
do glean and gather almost all that they take so much pains to
scatter about the world, gives continually this reason of Christ's be
ing called the "Son of God" and his "natural Son/' " I say," saith
he, " that Christ is deservedly called the ' natural Son of God/ be
cause he was born the Son of God, although he was not begotten of
the substance of God. And that he was bom the Son of God another

1 " Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo ? — Ans. Nullo pacto; etenim est conceptus
a Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei
est, ut de ea re Luc. i. 35 legimus." — Cat. Rac. de persona Christi, cap. i.

2 * Jesum Christum decent esse hominem ilium a Spiritu Sancto conceptum, et natum
ex beata Virgine ; extra vel ante quern nullum agnoscunt esse (aut) fuisse re ipsa exis-
tentem unigenitum Dei Filium. Porro hunc Deum, et Filium Dei unigenitum esse do-
cent turn ratione conceptionis a Spiritu Sancto," etc. — Compendiolum Doctrinse Eccl.
Christianse, etc., cap. i.

8 " Conceptus enim est de Spiritu Sancto, et natus ex Virgine Maria ; ob id genus
oonceptionis, et nativitatis modum, Filius etiam Dei ab ipso angelo vocatus fuit, et ita
naturalis Dei Filius (quia scilicet tails natus fuit) dici vere potest. Solus Jesus Chris-
tus a Deo Patre suo absque opera viri in lumen productus est.'' — Smalc. de Vera
Divin. Jes. Christ, cap. iii.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 1 79

way, and not by the generation of the substance of God, the \vords
of the angel prove, Luke i. 35. Therefore, because that man, Jesus
of Nazareth, who is called Christ, was begotten not by the help of
any man, but by the operation of the Holy Spirit in the womb of
his mother, he is therefore, or for that cause, called the ' Son of
God/"1 So he against Weik the Jesuit. He is followed by Yol-
kelius, lib. v. cap. xi. p. 468 ; whose book, indeed, is a mere casting
into a kind of a method what was written by Socinus and others,
scattered in sundry particulars, and whose method is pursued and
improved by Episcopius. Jonas Schlichtingius, amongst them all,
seems to do most of himself. I shall therefore add his testimony, to
show their consent in the assignation of this cause of the appellation
of the " Son of God," ascribed to our blessed Saviour. " There
are/' saith he, " many sayings of Scripture which show that Christ
is in a peculiar manner, and on an account not common to any
other, the Son of God ; but yet we may not hence conclude that he
is a Son on a natural account, when besides this, and that more com
mon, another reason may be given which hath place in Christ. Is
he not the Son of God on a singular account, and that which is
common to no other, if of God himself, by the virtue and efficacy of
the Holy Spirit, he was conceived and begotten in the womb of his
mother?"8

And this is the only buckler which they have to keep off the
sword of that argument for the deity of Christ, from his being the
proper Son of God, from the throat and heart of that cause which
they have undertaken. And yet how faintly they hold it is evident
from the expressions of this most cunning and skilful of all their
champions: "There may another reason be given;" which is the
general evasion of them all from any express testimony of Scripture.
" The words may have another sense, therefore nothing from them
can be concluded;" whereby they have left nothing stable or un
shaken in Christian religion; and yet they wipe their mouths, and
say they have done no evil.

But now, lest any one should say that they can see no reason why

1 " Dico igitur, Christum merito dici posse Filium Dei naturalem, quia natus est Dei
Tilius, tametsi ex ipsa Dei substantia non fuerit generatus. Natum autem ilium sub
alia ratione, quam per generationem ex ipsius Dei substantia, probant angeli verba,
Marise matri ejus dicta, Luc. i. 35. Quia igitur homo ille Jesus Nazarenus, qui dic-
tus est Christus, non viri alicujus opera, sed Spiritus Sancti operatione generatus est in
niatris utero, propterea Filius Dei est vocatus." — Faust. Socin. Responsio ad Weik. cap.
iv. p. 202.

5 " Sunt quidem plurima dicta quse ostendunt Christum peculiar! prorsus nee ulli
alio communi ratione esse Dei Filium ; non tamen hinc concludere licet eum esse
natural! ratione filium, cum prseter hanc, et illam communem, alia dari possit,
et in Christo reipsa locum habeat. Nonne singular! prorsus ratione, nee ulli com
muni, Dei Filius est Christus, si ab ipso Deo, vi et efficacia Spiritus Sancti, in utero
virginis conceptus fuit et genitus ? "— Schlichtiiig. ad Meisner. artic. de Trinit.
p. 1GO.

180 VINDICLE EVANGELIC M.

Christ should be called the " Son of God" because he was so con
ceived by the Holy Ghost, nor wherefore God should therefore in a
peculiar manner, and more .eminently than in respect of any other,
be called the " Father of Christ," to prevent any objection that on
this hand might arise, Smalcius gives an account whence this is, and
why God is called the " Father of Christ," and what he did in his
conception; which, for the abomination of it, I had rather you
should hear in his words than in mine. In his answer to the se
cond part of the refutation of Socinus by Smiglecius, cap. xvii. xviii.,
he contends to manifest and make good that Christ was the " Son of
God according to the .flesh," in direct opposition to that of the apostle,
" He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and de
clared to be the Son of God," etc., Rom. i. 3, 4. He says then, cap.
xviii. p. 156, " Socinus affirmat Deum. in generatione Christi vices
patris supplevisse." But how, I pray ? Why, " Satis est ad osten-
dendum, Deum in generatione Christi vices viri supplevisse, si osten-
datur Deum id ad Christi generationem adjecisse, quod in genera
tione hominis ex parte viri ad hominem produeendum adjici solet."
But what is that, or how is that done ? " Nos Dei virtutem in Vir
ginia uterum aliquam substantiam creatam vel immisisse, aut ibi
creasse affirmamus, ex qua juncto eo, quod ex ipsius Virginis sub-
stantia accessit, verus homo generatus fuit. Alias enim homo ille,
Dei Filius a conceptione et nativitate proprie non fuisset," cap. xvii.
p. 150. Very good ; unless this abominable figment may pass cur
rent, Christ was not the Son of God. Let the reader observe, by the
way, that .they cannot but acknowledge -Christ to have been, and to
have been called, the " Son of God" in a most peculiar manner. To
avoid the evidence of the inference from thence, that therefore he is
God, of the same substance with his Father, they have only this
shift, to say he is called the " Son of God" upon the account of that
whereof there is not the least tittle nor word in the whole book of
God, yea, which is expressly contrary to the testimony thereof ; and
unless this be granted, they affirm that Christ cannot be called the
" Son of God." But let us hear this great rabbi of Mr B.'s religion
a little farther clearing up this mystery : — " Necessitas magna fuit,
ut Christus ab initio vitse suse esset Deo Filius, qualis futurus non
fuisset nisi Dei virtute aliquid creatum fuisset, quod ad constituen-
dum Christi corpus, una cum Mariae sanguine concurrit. Mansit
autem nihilominus sanguis Marias Virginis purissimus, etiamsi cum
alio aliquo semine commixtus fuit. Potuit enim tam purum, imo
purius semen, a Deo creari, et proculdubio creatum fuit, quam erat
sanguis Marias. Coinmunis denique sensus et fides Christianorum
omnium, quod Christus non ex virili semine conceptus sit ; primum
communis error censend us est, si sacris literis repugnet: Deinde id
quod omnes sentiunt, facile cum ipsa veritate couciliari potest, ut

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 181

scilicet semen illud, quod a Deo creatum, et cum semine Marias con-
junctum fuit, dicatur non virile, quia non a viro profectum sit, vel
ex viro in uterum Virginis translatum, ut quidam opinantur, qui
semen Josephi translatum in Virginis uterum credunt," cap. xviii. p.
158. And thus far are men arrived: Unless this horrible figment
may be admitted, Christ is not the Son of God. He who is the
" true God and eternal life" will one day plead the cause of his own
glory against these men.

I insist somewhat the more on these things, that men may
judge the better whether in all probability Mr B., in his " impartial
search into the Scripture," did not use the help of some of them that
went before him in the discovery of the same things which he boasts
himself to have found out.

And this is the first reason which our catechist hath taken from
his masters to communicate to his scholars why Jesus Christ is called
the " Son of God." This he and they insist on exclusively to his eter
nal sonship, or being the Son of God in respect of his eternal gene
ration of the substance of his Father.

The other causes which they assign why he is called the " Son of
God" I shall very briefly point unto. By the way that hath been
spoken of, they say he was the Son of God, the natural Son of God.
But they say he was the Son of God before he was God. He grew
afterward to be a God by degrees, as he had those graces and excel
lencies and that power given him wherein his Godhead doth consist.
So that he was the Son of God, but not God (in their own sense)
until a while after; and then when he was so made a God, he came
thereby to be more the Son of God. But by this addition to his
sonship he became the adopted Son of God ; as, by being begotten,
as was before revealed, he was the natural Son of God. Let us hear
Smalcius a little opening these mysteries. " Neither," saith he, " was
Christ God all the while he was the Son of God. To be the Son of
God is referred to his birth, and all understand how one may be
called the ''Son of God" for his birth or original. But God none can
be (besides that one God), but for his likeness to God. So that
when Christ was made like God, by the divine qualities which were
in him, he was most rightly so far the Son of God as he was God,
and so far God as he was the Son of God. But before he had
obtained that likeness to God, properly he could not be said to be
God."1

1 " Nee enim omni tempore quo Christus Films Dei fuit, Deus etiam fait. Filium
enim Dei esse, ad nativitatem etiam referri, et ob ortum ipsum aliquem Dei Filium
appellari posse nemo non intelligit. At Deum (prseter unum ilium Deum) nemo esse
potest, nisi propter similitudinem cum Deo. Itaque tune cum Christus Deo similis
factus esset per divinas quae in ipso erant qualitates, summo jure eatenus Dei Filius,
qua Deus, et vicissim eatenus Deus, qua Dei Filius. At ante obtentam illam cum Deo
similitudinem Deus proprie dici non potuit." — Smalc. Respon. ad Smiglec. cap. xvii.
p. 154.

182 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

And these are some of those monstrous figments which, under
pretence of bare adherence to the Scripture, our catechist would
obtrude upon us : First, Christ is the Son of God ; then, growing
like God in divine qualities, he is made a God ; and so becomes the
Son of God. And this, if the man may be believed, is the pure
doctrine of the Scripture ! And if Christ be a God because he is
like God, by the same reason we are all gods in Mr B/s conceit,
being all made in the image and likeness of God ; which, says he, by
ein we have not lost.

But what kind of sonship is added to Christ by all these excel
lencies whereby he is made like to God ? The same author tells us
that it is a sonship by adoption, and that Christ -on these accounts
was the adopted Son of God. " If," saith he, " what is the signifi
cation of this word adoptivus may be considered from the Scripture,
we deny not but that Christ in this manner may be called the
' adopted Son of God/ seeing that such is the property and condition
of an adopted son that he is not born such as he is afterward made
by adoption. Certainly, seeing that Christ was not such by nature,
or in his conception and nativity, as he was afterward in his succeed
ing age, he may justly on that account be called the 'adopted Son of
God/"1 Such miserable plunges doth Satan drive men into whose
eyes he hath once blinded, that the glorious light of the gospel
should not shine into them ! And by this we may understand,
whatever they add farther concerning the sonship of Christ, that
all belongs to this adopted sonship; whereof there is not one tittle
in the whole book of God. ,

The reasons they commonly add why in this sense Christ is called
the " Son of God" are the same which they give why he is called
" God." " He is the only-begotten Son of God," say the authors of
the Compendium of the religion before mentioned, " because God
sanctified him, and sent him into the world, and because of his ex
altation at the right hand of God, whereby he was made our Lord
and God."3

If the reader desire to hear them speak in their own words, let
him consult Smalcius, De Vera Divinit. Jes. Christ, cap. vii., etc. ;
Socin. Disput. cum Erasmo Johan. Rationum quatuor antecedent.
Eefut. Disput. de Christi Natura, pp. 14, 15 ; Adversus Weikum,
pp. 224, 225, et passim ; Volkel. De Vera Relig. lib. v. cap. x.-xii. ;

1 " Si quae sit vocabuli ' adoptivus' significatio ex mente sacrarum literarum conside-
retur, nos non inficiari Christum suo modo esse adoptivum Dei Filium ; quia enim
adoptivi filii ea est conditio et proprietas, ut talis non sit natus qualis factus est post
adoptionem. Certe quia Christus talis natura, vel in ipsa conceptione et nativitate non
fuit, qualis postea fuit aetate accedente, sine injuria adoptivus Dei Filius eo modo did
potest.'' — Smalc. ad Smiglec. cap. xx. p. 175.

* " Filium Dei unigenitum esse decent, turn propter sanctificationem, ac missionem in
mundum, turn exaltationem ad Dei dextram, adeo ut factum Dominum et Deum nos
trum affirmant." — Compend. Relig. cap. i. p. 2.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 183

Jonas Schlicht. ad Meisner., pp. 192, 193, etc.; especially the same
person fully and distinctly opening and declaring the minds of his
companions, and the several accounts on which they affirm Christ to
be, and to have been called, the " Son of God," in his Comment on
the Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 16-20, as also his Notes upon Yech-
nerus' Sermon on John i. p. 14, etc. ; Anonym. Respon. ad Centum
Argumenta Cichorii Jesuits, pp. 8-10; Confessio Fidei Christianse,
edita nomine Ecclesiarum in Polonia, pp. 24, 25.

Their good friend Episcopius hath ordered all their causes of
Christ's filiation under four heads : —

1. The first way (saith he) whereby Christ is in the Scripture xar \\»^, called
the " Son of God," is in that as man lie was conceived of the Holy Ghost, and born
of a virgin. And I doubt not (saith he) but that God is on this ground called
eminently the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

2. Jesus Christ by reason of that duty or office which was imposed on him by
his Father, that he should be the king of Israel promised by the prophets, is called
the " Son of God."

3. Because he was raised up by the Father to an immortal life, and, as it were,
born again from the womb of the earth without.the help of any mother.

4. Because being so raised from death, he is made complete heir of his
Father's house, and lord of all his heavenly goods, saints, and angels.1

The like he had written before, in his Apology for the Remon
strants, cap. ii. sect. 2.

Thus he, evidently and plainly from the persons before named.
But yet, after all this, he asks another question, — " Whether, all this
being granted, there do not yet moreover remain a more eminent and
peculiar reason why Christ is called the 'Son of God T' He answers
himself: " There is,— namely, his eternal generation of the Father,
his being God of God from all eternity ;" which he pursues with sundry
arguments, and yet in the close disputes that the acknowledgment
of this truth is not fundamental, or the denial of it exclusive of sal
vation!9 So this great reconciler of the Arminian and Socinian re
ligions, whose composition and unity into an opposition to them
whom he calls Calvinists is the great design of his Theological Insti
tutions; and such at this day is the aim of Curcellaeus and some
others. By the way, I shall desire (before I answer what he offers

1 « Primus modus est, quia quatenus homo ex Spiritu Dei Sancto conceptus est, et
ex virgine natus est. Nee dubium mihi est, quin ob hunc modum, Deus etiam Ka,r
\l»X*i vocetur Pater Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Secundus modus est, quia Jesus
Christus ratione muneris illius, quod a Patre speciali mandato impositum ei fuit, ut
rex Israelis esset, promissus ille per prophetas, et pramsus ante secula Fihus Dei
vocatur. Tertius modus.est, quia a Patre ex mortuis in vitam imrnortalem suscita-
tus et veluti ex utero terrae, nulla mediante matre, denuo genitus est. Quartus modus
est,' quia Jesus Christus ex morte suscitatus, haeres ex asse constitute est in domo
Patris sui, ac proinde bonorum omnium coelestium, et Patris sui ministrorum omni
um sive angelorum dominus."— Episcop. Instit. Theolog. lib. iv. cap. xxxiii. sect. 2,
p. 195.

» Instit. Theol. lib. iv. cap. x*xiii, sect 2, p. 335.

184 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

to confirm his assignation of this fourfold manner of filiation to Jesus
Christ) to ask this learned gentleman (or those of his mind who do
survive him) this one question, Seeing that Jesus Christ was from
eternity the Son of God, and is called so after his incarnation, and
was on that account in his whole person the Son of God, by their
own confessions, what tittle can he or they find in the Scripture of a
manifold filiation of Jesus Christ in respect of God his Father? or
whether it be not a diminution of his glory to be called the Son of
God upon any lower account, as by a new addition to him who was
eternally his only-begotten Son, by virtue of his eternal generation
of his own substance ?

Having thus discovered the mind of them with whom we have to
do, and from whom our catechist hath borrowed his discoveries, I
shall briefly do these two [three?] things: — I. Show that the filia
tion of Christ consists in his generation of the substance of his Father
from eternity, or that he is the Son of God upon the account of his
divine nature and subsistence therein, antecedent to his incarnation.
II. That it consists solely therein, and that he was not, nor was
called, the Son of God upon any other account but that mentioned ;
and therein answer what by Mr B. or others is objected to the con
trary. III. To which I shall add testimonies and arguments for the
deity of Christ, — whose opposition is the main business of that new
religion which Mr B. would catechise poor unstable souls into, — in
the vindication of those excepted against by the Racovians.

I. For the demonstration of the first assertion, I shall insist on
some few of the testimonies and arguments that might be produced
for the same purpose: —

1. He who is the true, proper, only-begotten Son of God, of the
living God, he is begotten of the essence of God his Father, and is
his Son by virtue of that generation ; but Jesus Christ was thus the
only, true, proper, only-begotten Son of God : and therefore he is the
Son of God upon the account before mentioned. That Jesus Christ
is the Son of God in the manner expressed, the Scripture abundantly
testifieth : " Lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am well pleased," Matt. iii. 17; "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God," chap. xvi. 16, John vi. 69.

Which [latter] place in Matthew is the rather remarkable, because
it is the confession of the faith of the apostles, given in answer to that
question, " Whom say ye that I the Son of man am ?" They an
swer, " The Son of the living God;" and this in opposition to them
who said he was " a prophet, or as one of the prophets," as Mark
expresses it, chap, vi 15, — that is, only so. And the whole confes
sion manifests that they did in it acknowledge both his office of being
the Mediator and his divine nature or person also. " Thou art the
Christ." These words comprise all the causes of filiation insisted on

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 185

by them with whom we have to do, and the whole office of the media
tion of Christ; but yet hereunto they add, " The Son of the living
God," expressing his divine nature, and sonship on that account.

" And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are
in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true
God, and eternal life," 1 John v. 20. " He spared not his own Son/'
Rom. viii. 32. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father/'
John i. ] 4. " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,"
verse 18. " He said also that God was his Father, making himself
equal with God," John v. 18. " God so loved the world, that he
gave his only-begotten Son," John iii. 16. " In this was manifested
the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten
Son into the world," 1 John iv. 9. "Thou art my Son; this day
have I begotten thee," Ps. ii. 7, etc. All which places will be after
ward vindicated at large.

To prove the inference laid down, I shall fix on one or two of
these instances: —

1. He who is "dtog vi6$, the "proper son" of any, is begotten of
the substance of his father. Christ is the proper Son of God, and
God he called often "dtov nar^a, his " proper Father." He is properly
a father who begets another of his substance; and he is properly a
son who is so begotten.

Grotius confesseth there is an emphasis in the word tdng, whereby
Christ is distinguished from that kind of sonship which the Jews
kid claim unto.1 Now, the sonship they laid claim unto and en
joyed, so many of them as were truly so, was by adoption ; for " to
them pertained the adoption/' Rom. ix. 4. Wherein this emphasis,
then, and specially of Christ's sonship, should consist, but in what
'we assert of his natural sonship, cannot be made to appear. Grotius
says it is " because the Son of God was a name of the Messiah."
True, but on what account ? Not that common [one] of adoption,
but this of nature, as shall afterward appear.

Again ; he who is properly a son is distinguished from him who
is metaphorically so only ; for any thing whatever is metaphorically
said to be what it is said to be by a translation and likeness to that
which is true. Now, if Christ be not begotten of the essence of his
Father, he is only a metaphorical Son of God by way of allusion,
and cannot be called the proper Son of God, being only one who
hath but a similitude to a proper Son ; so that it is a plain contra
diction that Christ should be the proper Son of God, and yet not
be begotten of his Father's essence. Besides, in that 8th of the
1 Grot. Annot. Job. v. 18.

186 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

Romans, the apostle had before mentioned other sons of God, who
became so by adoption, verses 15, 16; but when he comes to speak
of Christ in opposition to them, he calls him " God's own" or proper
"Son," — that is, his natural Son, they being so only by adoption. And
in the very words themselves, the distance that is given him by way
of eminence above all other things doth sufficiently evince in what
sense he is called the "proper Son of God:" "He that spared not his
own Son, how shall he not with him give us all things?"

2. The only-begotten Son of God is his natural Son, begotten of
his essence, and there is no other reason of this appellation. And
this is farther clear from the antithesis of this " only-begotten" to
" adopted." They are adopted sons who are received to be such by
grace and favour. He is only-begotten who alone is begotten of the
substance of his father; neither can any other reason be assigned
why Christ should so constantly, in way of distinction from all others,
be called the " only-begotten Son of God." It were even ridiculous
to say that Christ were the only-begotten Son of God and his pro
per Son, if he were his Son only metaphorically and improperly.
That Christ is the proper, only-begotten Son of God, improperly and
metaphorically, is that which is asserted to evade these testimonies of
Scripture. Add hereunto the emphatical, discriminating significancy
of that voice from heaven, "This is he, that well-beloved Son of mine ;"
and that testimony which in the same manner Peter gave to this son-
ship of Christ in his confession, "Thou art the Son of the living God ;"
and the ground of Christ's filiation will be yet more evident. Why
the Son of the living God, unless as begotten of God as the living God,
as living things beget of their own substance? But of that place before.
Christ, then, being the true, proper, beloved, only-begotten Son of
the living God, is his natural Son, of his own substance and essence.

3. The same truth may have farther evidence given unto it from
the consideration of what kind of Son of God Jesus Christ is. He
who is such a son as is equal to his father in essence and proper
ties is a son begotten of the essence of his father. Nothing can
give such an equality but a communication of essence. Then, with
God, equality of essence can alone give equality of dignity and honour ;
for between that dignity, power, and honour, which belong to God
as God, and that dignity or honour that is or may be given to any
other, there is no proportion, much less equality, as shall be evi
denced at large afterward. And this is the sole reason why a son is
equal to his father in essence and properties, because he hath from
him a communication of the same essence whereof he is partaker.
Now, that Christ is such a Son as hath been mentioned, the Scripture
abundantly testifies. "My Father," saith Christ, " worketh hitherto,
and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because
he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 187

Father, making himself equal with God/' John v. 17, 18. Verse 1 7,
having called God his Father in the particular manner before men
tioned, and affirmed to himself an equal nature and power for opera
tion with his Father, the Jews thence inferred that he testified of him
self that he was such a Son of God as that he was equal with God.

The full opening of this place at large is not my present business ;
the learned readers know where to find that done to their hand.
The intendment of those words is plain and evident. Grotius ex
pounds "Iffov saurov r<f> 0£p, by " It was lawful for him to do what
was so to God, and that he Avas no more bound to the Sabbath than
he; which," saith he, "was a gross calumny."1 So verse 19, these
words of our Saviour, " The Son can do nothing of himself but what
he seeth the Father do" (wherein the emphasis lies evidently in the
words ap' favrov, for the Son can do nothing of himself but what
the Father doth, seeing he hath his essence, and so, consequently, will
and power, communicated to him by the Father), he renders to be
an allusion to and comparison between a master and scholar;3 as the
scholar looks diligently to what his master doth, and strives to imi
tate him, so was it with Christ and God; — which exposition was the
very same with that which the Arians assigned to this place, as
Maldonate upon the place makes appear. That it was not an equal
licence with the Father to work on the Sabbath, but an equality of
essence, nature, and power between Father and Son, that the Jews
concluded from the saying of Christ, is evident from this considera
tion, that there was no strength in that plea of our Saviour of work
ing on the Sabbath-day because his Father did so, without the
violation of the Sabbath, unless there had been an equality between
the persons working. That the Jews did herein calumniate Christ
or accuse him falsely, the Tritheists said, indeed, as Zanchius testi
fies;3 and Socinus is of the same mind, whose interest Grotius
chiefly serves in his Annotations: but the whole context and car
riage of the business, with the whole reply of our Saviour, do abun
dantly manifest that the Jews, as to their conclusion, were in the
right, that he made himself such a Son of God as was equal to him.
For if in this conclusion they had been mistaken, and so had ca
lumniated Christ, there be two grand causes why he should have de
livered them from that mistake by expounding to them what manner
of Son of God he was: — First, Because of the just scandal they might
take at what he had spoken, apprehending that to be the sense of
his words which they professed.4 Secondly, Because on that account

1 " Sibi licere prsedicans quicquid Deo licet; neque magis Sabbato se adstringi.
Crossa calumnia." — Grot. Annot. Johan. v. 18.

2 " Comparatio est sumpta a discipulo qui magistrum sibi prseeuntem diligenter in-
tuetur, ut imitari possit." — Id. ibid. v. 19.

8 Zanchius de Tribus Elolrim, lib. v. cap. iv. p. 151.

• "Notemus igitur Christum Judaeos tanquam in verborum suorum intclligentia

188 VINDICLE EV ANGELICA

they sought to slay him ; which if they had done, he should by his
death have borne witness to that which was not true. They sought
to kill him because he made himself such a Son of God as by that
sonship he was equal to God ; which if it were not so, there was a
necessity incumbent on him to have cleared himself of that asper
sion, which yet he is so far from, as that in the following verses he
farther confirms the same thing.

So he " thought it not robbery to be equal with God," Phil. ii. 6-
It is of God the Father that this is spoken, as the Father, as ap
pears in the winding up of that discourse: Verse 11, " That every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father." And to him is Christ equal ; and therefore begotten
of his own essence.

Yea, he is such a Son as is one with his Father: "I and my Father
are one," John x. 30 ; which the Jews again instantly interpret, with
out the least reproof from him, that he being man did yet aver
himself to be God, verse 33.

This place also is attempted to be taken out of our hands by
Grotius, though with no better success than the fonner. 'E/w xai
6 UctTtip sv effpsv. " He joineth what he had spoken with what went
before," saith he : " If they cannot be taken from my Father's
power, they cannot be taken from mine, for I have my power of my
Father ; so that it is all one to be kept of me as of my Father : " which
he intends, as I suppose, to illustrate by the example of the power
that Joseph had under Pharaoh, Gen. xli., though the verse he in
tend be false printed.1 But that it is an unity of essence and nature,
as well as an alike prevalency of power, that our Saviour intends,
[is evident,] not only from that apprehension which the Jews had
concerning the sense of those words, who immediately took up stones
to kill him for blasphemy (from which apprehension he doth not at
all labour to free them), but also from the exposition of his mind in
those words, which is given us in our Saviour's following discourse:
for, verse 36, he tells us this is as much as if he had said, " I am
the Son of God" (now, the unity between Father and Son is in
essence and nature principally), and then that "he doeth the works
of his Father," the same works that his Father doeth, verses 37, 38,
which, were he not of the same nature with him, he could not do;
which he closes with this, " That the Father is in him, and he in the
Father," verse 38 : of which words before and afterward.

hallucinates minime reprehendentem se naturalem Dei Filium clare professum esse.
Deinde, quod isto modo colligunt Christum se Deo sequalem facere recte fecerunt ; nee
ideo a Christo refelluntur, aut vituperantur ab evangelista, qui in re tanta nos errare
non fuerit passus." — Cartwrightus Har. Eyan. inloc.

" Connectit quod dixerat cum superioribua ; Si Patris potestati eripi non pote-
runt, nee meas poterunt : nam mea potestas a Patre emanat, et quidem ita, ut tan-
tomdem yaleat a me, aut a Patre, custodiri. Vid. Gen. xli. 25, 27."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 189

He, then (that we may proceed), who is so the Son of God as that
he is one with God, and therefore God, is the natural and eternal
Son of God ; but that such a Son is Jesus Christ is thus plentifully
testified unto in the Scripture. But because I shall insist on sundry
other places to prove the deity of Christ, which also all confirm the
truth under demonstration, I shall here pass them by. The evi
dences of this truth from Scripture do so abound, that I shall but
only mention some other heads of arguments that may be and are
commonly insisted on to this purpose. Then, —

4. He who is the Son of God, begotten of his Father by an eter
nal communication of his divine essence, he is the Son begotten of
the essence of the Father ; for these terms are the same, and of the
same importance. But this is the description of Christ as to his
sonship which the Holy Ghost gives us. Begotten he was of the
Father, according to his own testimony : " Thou art my Son ; this
day have I begotten thee," Ps. ii. 7. And he is " the only -begotten
Son of God," John iii. 18. And that he is so begotten by a com
munication of essence we have his own testimony: "Before the
hills, was I brought forth," Prov. viii. 25. He was begotten and
brought forth from eternity. Anpl now he tells you farther, John
v. 26, " The Father hath given to the Son to have life in him
self." It was by the Father's communication of life unto him,
and his living essence or substance ; for the life that is in God
differs not from his being. And all this from eternity : " The LORD
possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth ; when there
were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains
were settled, before the hills was I brought forth," etc., Prov. viii.
22, etc., to the end of verse 31. " But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ;
whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," Micah
v. 2. " In the beginning was the Word," John i. 1. " And now, O
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was," John xvii. 5. " And again,
when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith," etc.,
Heb. i. 6, etc.

5. The farther description which we have given us of this Son
makes it yet more evident : " He is the brightness of his Father's
glory, and the express image of his person," Heb. i. 3. " The image
of the invisible God," Col. i. 1 5. That Christ is the essential image of
his Father, and not an accidental image, an image so as no creature
is or can be admitted into copartnership with him therein, shall be on
another occasion in this treatise fully demonstrated. And thither the
vindication of these texts from the gloss of Grotius is also remitted.

190 VINDICI^ EYANGELICLE.

And this may suffice (without insisting upon what more might be
added) for the demonstration of the first assertion, That Christ's filia
tion ariseth from his eternal generation, or he is the Son of God
upon the account of his being begotten of the essence of his Father
from eternity.

II. That he is and is termed the Son of God solely on this ac
count, and not upon the reasons mentioned by Mr B. and explained
from his companions, is with equal clearness evinced. Nay, I see
not how any thing may seem necessary for this purpose to be added
to what hath been spoken ; but for the farther satisfaction of them
who oppose themselves, the ensuing considerations, through the
grace and patience of God, may be of use : —

1. If, for the reasons and causes above insisted on from the So-
cinians, Christ be the Son of God, then Christ is the Son of God
" according to the flesh," or according to his human nature. So he
must needs be, if God be called his Father because he supplied the
room of a father in his conception. But this is directly contrary to
the scriptures calling him the Son of God in respect of his divine
nature, in opposition to the flesh or his human nature : " Concerning
his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with
power," Rom. i. 3, 4. " Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 5. The same
distinction and opposition is observed, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, 1 Pet. iii. 18.
If Jesus Christ according to the flesh be the Son of David, in contra
distinction to the Son of God, then doubtless he is not called the
Son of God according to the flesh ; but this is the plain assertion of
the Scripture in the places before named. Besides, on the same
reason that Christ is the Son of man, on the same he is not the Son
of God; but Christ was and was called the Son of man upon the
account of his conception of the substance of his mother, and par
ticularly the Son of David, and so is not on that account the Son of
God.

Farther ; that place of Rom. i. 3, 4, passing not without some ex
ceptions as to the sense insisted on, may be farther cleared and vin
dicated. Jesus Christ is called the Son of God : Verses 1, 3, " The
gospel of God concerning his Son Jesus Christ." This Son is farther
described, — (1.) By his human nature: He was " made of the seed of
David according to the flesh." (2.) In respect of his person or divine
nature, wherein he was the " Son of God," and that ev dwd/tu, " in
power," or " existing in the power of God," for so Suva/Lit put abso
lutely doth often signify: as Rom. i. 20; Matt. vi. 13, xxvi. 64; Luke
iv. 36. He had, or was in, the omnipotency of God ; and was this
declared to be, not in respect of the flesh, in which he was " made of
a woman," but SKZT& Hvsvpot, ayiuff-jvy; (which is opposed to xarJs

OF THE PERSON" OF JESUS CHEIST. 191

septet), " according to," or " in respect of, his divine holy Spirit;" as
is also the intendment of that word " The Spirit/' in the places above
mentioned. Neither is it new that the deity of Christ should be
called Uvtufj,a ayiuffvvqf himself is called B^li? B'7'P> Dan. ix. 24,
Sanctitas Sanctitatum, as here Spiritus Sanctitatis. And all this,
saith the apostle, was declared so to be, or Christ was declared to be
thus the Son of God, in respect of his divine, holy, spiritual being,
which is opposed to the flesh, «| dvaffrdasug vtxpuv, "by the" (or his)
" resurrection from the dead," whereby an eminent testimony was
given unto his deity. He was " declared to be the Son of God "
thereby, according to the sense insisted on.

To weaken this interpretation, Grotius moves, as they say, every
stone, and heaves at every Word ; but in vain. (1.) ' Opisd'evros, he tells
us, is as much as vpoopiffOivroc, as by the Vulgar Latin it is translated
prcedestinatus. So, he pleads, it was interpreted by many of the
ancients. The places he quotes were most of them collected by
Beza in his annotations on the place, who yet rejects their judgment
therein, and cites others to the contrary. Luke xxii. 22, Actsx. 42,
xvii. 31, are also urged by him to evince the sense of the word; in
each of which places it may be rendered " declared," or " to de
clare," and in neither of them ought to be by "predestinated." Though
the word may sometimes signify so (which is not proved), yet that it
here doth so will not follow. 'Opo$, a " definition" (from whence that
word comes), declares what a thing is, makes it known ; and 6p /'£w
may best be rendered " to declare," Heb. iv. 7. So in this place. T/
oZv sariv opisdevrog rov ©sou; dsi^dsvras, diropawdivrog, says Chrysostom on
the place. And so doth the subject-matter require, the apostle
treating of the way whereby Christ was manifested eminently to be
the Son of God.

But the most learned man's exposition of this place is admirable.
" Jesus," saith he, " is many ways said to be the ' Son of God/ "
This is begged in the beginning, because it will not be proved in the
end. If this be granted, it matters not much what follows. " But
most commonly, or most in a popular way, because he was raised
unto a kingdom by God." Not once in the whole book of God !
Let him, or any one for him, prove this by any one clear testi
mony from Scripture, and take his whole interpretation. The Son
of God, as Mediator, was exalted to a kingdom, and made a Prince
and Saviour: but that by that exaltation he was made the Son
of God, or was so on that account, is yet to be proved ; yea, it is
most false. He goes on: " In that sense the words of the second
Psalm were spoken of David, because he was exalted to a kingdom,
which are applied to Christ, Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5." But it is not
proved that these words do at all belong to David, so much as in the
type, nor any of the words from verse 7 to the end of the psalm.

192 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

-f

If they are so to be accommodated, they belong to the manifestation t
not constitution of him ; and so they are applied to our Saviour, when
they relate to his resurrection, as one who was thereby manifested
to be the Son of God, according as God had spoken of him. But
now how was Christ predestinated to this sonship? "This kingly
dignity, or the dignity of a Son, of Jesus, was predestinated and pre
figured, when, leading a mortal life, he wrought ' signs and wonders ;'
which is the sense of the words tv dwdpei." The first sense of the
word opiffdsvTog is here insensibly slipped from. Predestinated and
prefigured are ill conjoined as words of a neighbouring significancy.
To predestinate is constantly ascribed to God as an act of his fore-
appointing things to their end ; neither can this learned man give
one instance from the Scripture of any other signification of the
word. And how comes now opieQwros to be "prefigured"? Is there the
least colour for such a sense ? " Predestinated to be the Son of
God with power ;" that is, " The signs he wrought prefigured that
he should be exalted to a kingdom." He was by them in a good
towardliness for it. It is true, 8vydfj.fi;, and sometimes 5uva^/j, being in
construction with some transitive verb, doth signify "great" or "mar
vellous works;" but that iv bwd^n, spoken of one declared to be so,
hath the same signification, is not proved. He adds, " These signs
Jesus did by ' the Spirit of holiness;' that is, that divine efficacy
wherewith he was sanctified from the beginning of his conception,
Luke i. 35 ; Mark ii 8 ; John ix. 36." In the two latter places
there is not one word to the purpose in hand ; perhaps he intended
some other, and these are false printed. The first shall be afterward
considered ; how it belongs to what is here asserted I understand
not/ That Christ wrought miracles by the " efficacy of the grace of
the Spirit," with which he was sanctified, is ridiculous. If by the
" Spirit" is understood his "spiritual, divine nature," this whole inter
pretation falls to the ground. To make out the sense of the words,
he proceeds, " Jesus therefore is showed to be noble on the mother's
side, as coming of an earthly king ; but more noble on his Father's
part, being made a heavenly king of God, after his resurrection,
Heb. v. 9 ; Acts ii. 30, xxvi. 23." * And thus is this most evident
testimony of the deity of Christ eluded, or endeavoured to be so.

1 " Jesus Filius Dei multis modis dicitur ; maxime populariter, ideo quod in regnum
a Deo evectus est ; quo sensu verba Psalmi secundi, de Davide dicta, cum ad regnum
pervenit, Christo aptantur, Act. xiii. 33, et ad Hebraeos i. 5, et T. 5. Haac autem Filii
sive regia dignitas Jesu praedestinabatur et praefigurabatur turn cum mortalem agens
vitam magna ilia signa et prodigia ederet, quse liniapiuv voce denotantur, ssepe et singu-
lariter lu*a.p.tus, ut Marci vi. 5, ix. 39 ; Luc. iv. 36, v. 17, vi. 19, viii. 46, ix. 1 ; Act.
iii. 12, iv. 33, vi. 8, x. 38. Hsec signa edebat Jesus, per Spiritum ilium sanctitatis, id
est, vim divinam, per quam ab initio conceptionis sanctificatus fuerat, Luc. i. 35 ; Marci
ii. 8 ; Job., ix. 36. Ostenditur ergo Jesus nobilis ex materna parte, utpote ex Rege ter-
reno ortus ; sed nobilior ex Paterna parte, quippe a Deo factus rex coelestis post resur-
rcctionem, Heb. v. 9; Act. ii, 30, xxvi. 23."— Grot. Annot. in Horn. i. 3, 4.

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 193

Christ on the mother's side was the " son of David/' — that is, " ac
cording to the flesh," — of the same nature with her and him. On
the Father's side he was the " Son of God," of the same nature with
him. That God was his Father, and he the Son of God, because
" after his resurrection he was made a heavenly king," is a hellish
figment, neither is there any one word or tittle in the texts cited to
prove it ; so that it is a marvel to what end they are mentioned, one
of them expressly affirming that he was the Son of God before his
resurrection, Heb. v. 8, 9.

2. He who was actually the Son of God before his conception,
nativity, endowment with power or exaltation, is not the Son of God
on these accounts, but on that only which is antecedent to them.
Now, by virtue of all the arguments and testimonies before cited, as
also of all those that shall be produced for the proof and evincing
of the eternal deity of the Son of God, the proposition is unmove-
ably established, and the inference evidently follows thereupon.

But yet the proposition, as laid down, may admit of farther con
firmation at present. It is, then, testified to, Prov. xxx. 4, " What is
his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" He was,
therefore, the Son of God, and he was incomprehensible, even then
before his incarnation. Ps. ii. 7, " Thou art my Son ; this day have I
begotten thee." Isa. ix. 6, " Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlast
ing Father, The Prince of Peace." He is a Son, as he is the everlast
ing Father. And to this head of testimonies belongs what we urged
before from Prov. viii. 22, eta " He is the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of every creature," CoLi. 15, which surely as to his
incarnation he was not. " Before Abraham was, I am," John viii. 58.
But of these places, in the following chapter, I shall speak at large.

3. Christ was so the Son of God that he that was made like him
was to be without father, mother, or genealogy: Heb. vii. 3, "With
out father, without mother, without descent, having neither begin
ning of days nor end of life ; but made like unto the Son of God."
But now Christ, in respect of his conception and nativity, had a
mother (and one, they say, that supplied the room of father), had a
genealogy that is upon record, and beginning of life, etc.; so that
upon these accounts he was not the Son of God, but on that wherein
he had none of all these things, in the want whereof Melchisedec was
made like to him. I shall only add, —

4. That which only manifests the filiation of Christ is not the
cause of it. The cause of a thing is that which gives it its being.
The manifestation of it is only that which declares it to be so. That
all things insisted on as the causes of Christ's filiation, by them with
whom we have to do, did only declare and manifest him so to be

VOL. XIL 13

194 VINDICI.E EVANGELICAL

who was the Son of God, the Scripture witnesseth : " The Holy Ghost
shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee ; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God," Luke i. 35. He shall be called so, — there
by declared to be so: " And great was the mystery of godliness: God
was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
into glory," 1 Tim. iii 16. All the causes of Christ's filiation as
signed by our adversaries are evidently placed as manifestations of
God in him, or of his being the Son of God : " Declared to be the Sou
of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resur
rection from the dead," Rom. i. 3, 4. The absurdity of assigning dis
tinct and so far different causes of the same effect of filiation, whether
you make them total or partial, need not be insisted on.

Farther (to add one consideration more), says Socinus, " Christ was
the Son of God upon the account of his holiness and righteousness,
and therein his likeness to God." Now, this he had not, according to
his principles, in his infancy. He proves Adam not to have been
righteous in the state of innocency, because he had yielded actual
obedience to no law: no more had Christ done in his infancy.
Therefore, — (1.) He was not the Son of God upon the account of his
nativity; nor (2.) did he become the Son of God any otherwise than
we do, namely, by hearing the word, learning the mind, and doing
the will of God. (3.) God did not give his only- begotten Sou for
us, but gave the son of Mary, that he might (by all that which we
supposed he had done for us) be made the Son of God. And so
(4.) this sending of Christ doth not so much commend the love of
God to us as to him, that he sent. him to die and rise that he might
be made God and the Son of God. (5.) Neither can any eximious
love of Christ to us be seen in what he did and suffered ; for had he
not done and suffered what he did, he had not been the Son of God.
(6.) And also, if Christ be, on the account of his excellencies, graces,
and gifts, the Son of God (which is one way of his filiation insisted
on), — and to be God and the Son of God is, as they say, all one, and
as it is indeed, — then all who are renewed into the image of God, and
are thereby the sons of God (as are all believers), are gods also!

And this that hath been spoken may suffice for the confirmation
of the second assertion laid down at the entrance of this discourse.

To the farther confirmation of this assertion two things are to be
annexed: — First, The eversion of that fancy of Episcopius before
mentioned, and the rest of the Socinianizing Arminians, that Christ
is called the " Son of God," both on the account of his eternal son-
ship and also of those other particulars mentioned from him abova
Secondly, To consider the texts of Scripture produced by Mr B. for
the confirmation of his insinuation, that Christ is not called the "Son

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 195

of God" because of his eternal generation of the essence of his Father.
The first may easily be evinced by the ensuing arguments : —

1. The question formerly proposed to Episcopius may be renewed;
for if Christ be the Son of God partly upon the account of his eter
nal generation, and so he is God's proper and natural Son, and
partly upon the other accounts mentioned, then, —

(1.) He is partly God's natural Son, and partly his adopted Son ;
partly his eternal Son, partly a temporary Son ; partly a begotten
Son, partly a made Son ; — of which distinctions, in reference to Christ,
,there is not one iota in the whole book of God.

(2.) He is made the Son of God by that which only manifests
him to be the Son of God, as the things mentioned do.

(3.) Christ is equivocally only, and not univocally, called the Son
of God ; for that which hath various and diverse causes of its being
so is so equivocally. If the filiation of Christ hath such equivocal
causes as eternal generation, actual incarnation, and exaltation, he
hath an equivocal filiation ; which whether it be consistent with the
Scripture, which calls him the proper Son of God, needs no great
pains to determine.

2. The Scripture never conjoins these causes of Christ's filiation
as causes in and of the same kind, but expressly makes the one the
sole constituting, and the rest causes manifesting only, as hath been
declared. And, to shut up this discourse, if Christ be the Son of
man only because he was conceived of the substance of his mother,
he is the Son of God only upon the account of his being begotten of
the substance of his Father.

Secondly, There remaineth only the consideration of those texts
of Scripture which Mr B. produceth to insinuate the filiation of
Christ to depend on other causes, and not on his eternal generation
of the essence of his Father; which, on the principles laid down and
proved, will receive a quick and speedy despatch.

] . The first place named by him, and universally insisted on by
the whole tribe, is Luke i. 30-35. It is the last verse only that I
suppose weight is laid upon. Though Mr B. names the others, his
masters never do so. That of verses 31, 32 seems, to deserve our
notice in Mr B/s judgment, who changes the character of the words
of it, for their significancy to his purpose. The words are, " Thou
shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his
name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the
Highest." What Mr B. supposes may be proved from hence, at
least how he would prove what he aims at, I know not. That Jesus
Christ, who was born of the Virgin, was a son of the Highest we
contend. On what account he was so the place mentioneth not; but
the reason of it is plentifully manifested in other places, as hath been
declared.

106 VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^.

The words of verse 35 are more generally managed by them:
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore also that holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." But neither
do these particles, 8ib xai, render a reason of Christ's filiation, nor
are [they] a note of the consequent, but only of an inference or conse
quence that ensues from what he spake before : " It being so as I
have spoken, even that holy thing that shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God." There is weight also in that expression,
"\yiov rb ytwtofjMvov, " That holy thing that shall be born of thee/'
" \yiov is not spoken in the concrete, or as an adjective, but substan-
tively, and points out the natural essence of Christ, whence he was
" that holy thing." Besides, if this be the cause of Christ's filiation
which is assigned, it must be demonstrated that Christ was on that
account called the " Son of God," for so hath it been said that he
should be ; but there is not any thing in the New Testament to give
light that ever Christ was on this account called the " Son of God,"
nor can the adversaries produce any such instance.

2. It is evident that the angel in these words acquaints the blessed
Virgin that in and by her conception the prophecy of Isaiah should
be accomplished, which you have, chap, vii 14, "Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, an^l bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,"
as the express wprds of Luke declare, being the same with those
of the prophecy, " Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and
bring forth a son, and shalt call," etc., verses 31, 32. And Matt.
i. 20, 21, this very thing being related, it is said expressly to be done
according to what was foretold by the prophet, verses 22, 23, repeating
the very words of the Holy Ghost by Isaiah, which are mentioned
before. Now Isaiah foretelleth two things :—-(!.) That a virgin
should conceive ; (2.) That he that was so conceived should be Im
manuel, God with us; or the Son of God, as Luke here expresses
it And this is that which the angel here acquaints the blessed
Virgin withal upon her inquiry, verse 34, even that, according to the
prediction of Isaiah, she should conceive and bear a son, though a
virgin, and that that son of net's should be called the " Son of God."

By the way, Grotius' dealing with this text, both in his annota
tions on Isa. vii., as also in his large discourse on Matt. L 21-23, is
intolerable and full of offence to all that seriously weigh it. It is
too large here to be insisted on. His main design is to prove that
this is not spoken directly of Christ, but only applied to him by a
certain general accommodation. God may give time and leisure
farther to lay open the heap of abominations which are couched in
those learned annotations throughout. Which also appears, —

3. From the emphaticalness of the expression 3/i xal, " even also."
" That holy thing which is to be born of thee, even that shall be called

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 197

the Son of God, and not only that eternal Word that is to be incarnate.
That ay/ov rb yiwuptvov, being in itself anvdararov, shall be called the
Son of God." " Shall be called so/' that is, appear to be so, and be
declared to be so with power. It is evident, then, that the cause of
Christ's filiation is not here insisted on, but the consequence of the
Virgin's conception declared ; that which was " born of her should
be called the Son of God."

And this Socinus is so sensible of that he dares not say that Christ
was completely the Son of God upon his conception and nativity;
which, if the cause of his filiation were here expressed, he must be.
" It is manifest," saith he, " that Christ before his resurrection was
not fully and completely the Son of God, being not like God before
in immortality and absolute rule."1

Mr B.'s next place, whereby the sonship of Christ is placed on
another account, as he supposes, is John x. 36, " Say ye of him, whom
the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphem-
est ; because I said, I am the Son of God ? "

That this scripture is called to remembrance not at all to Mr B.'s
advantage will speedily appear ; for, —

1. Here is not in the words the least mention whence, or for what
cause it is, that Christ is the Son of God, but only that he is so, he
being expressed and spoken of under that description which is used
of him twenty times in that Gospel, " He who is sent of the Father."
This is all that is in this place asserted, that he whom the Father
sanctified and sent into the world counted it no robbery to be equal
with him, nor did blaspheme in calling himself his Son.

2. It is evident that Christ in these words asserts himself to be
such a Son of God as the Jews charged him with blasphemy for
affirming of himself that he was ; for he justifies himself against
their accusation, not denying in the least that they rightly appre
hended and understood him, but maintaining what he had spoken
to be most true. Now, this was that which the Jews charged him
withal, verse 33, "That he, being a man, blasphemed in making him
self God ; " for so they understood him, that in asserting his sonship
he asserted also his deity. This Christ makes good, namely, that
he is such a Son of God as is God also ; yea, he makes good what
he had said, verse 30, which was the foundation of all the following
discourse about his blasphemy, " I and my Father are one." So
that,—

3. An invincible argument for the sonship of Christ, to be placed
only upon the account of his eternal generation, ariseth from this very
place that was produced to oppose it ! He who is the Son of God

1 " Const at igitur (ut ad propositum revert amur), Christum ante resurrectionem Dei
Filium plene et perfecte non fuisse : cum illi et immortalitatis et absoluti dominii
cum Deo similitude deesset." — Socin. Respon. ad Weikum, p. 225.

198 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JE.

because he is " one with the Father," and God equal to him, is the
Son of God upon the account of his eternal relation to the Father:
but that such was the condition of Jesus Christ, himself here bears
witness to the Jews, although they are ready to stone him for it ;
and of his not blaspheming in this assertion he convinces his adver
saries by an argument a minori, verses 34-36.

A brief analysis of this place will give evidence to this interpreta
tion of the words. Our Saviour Christ having given the reason why
the Jews believed not on him, namely, " because they were not of
his sheep," verse 26, describes thereupon both the nature of those
sheep of his, verse 27, and their condition of safety, verse 28. This
he farther confirms from the consideration of his Father's greatness
and power, which is amplified by the comparison of it with others,
who are all less than he, verse 29 ; as also from his own power and
will, which appears to be sufficient for that end and purpose from
his essential unity with his Father, verse 30. The effect of this dis
course of Christ by accident is the Jews taking up of stones, which
is amplified by this, that it was the second time they did so, and that
to this purpose, that they might stone him, verse 31. Their folly
and madness herein Christ disproves with an argument ab absurdo,
telling them that it must be for some good work that they stoned
him, for evil had he done none, verse 32. This the Jews attempt
to disprove by a new argument a disparatis, telling him that it was
" not for a good work, but for blasphemy," that he "made himself to
be God," whom they would prove to be but a man, verse 33. This
pretence of blasphemy Christ disproves, as I said before, by an argu
ment a minori, verses 34-36, and with another from the effects or
the works which he did, which sufficiently proved him to be God,
verses 37, 38, still maintaining what he said and what they thought
to be blasphemy; so that they attempt again to kill him, verse 39.
It is evident, then, that he still maintained what they charged him
with.

4. And this answers that expression which is so frequent in the
Scripture, of God's sending his Son into the world, and that he
came down from heaven, and came into the world, Gal. iv. 4,
John iii. 13 ; all evincing his being the Son of God antecedently to
that mission or sanctification whereby in the world he was declared
so to be. Otherwise, the Son of God was not sent, but one to be
his Son.

Acts xiii. 32, 33, is also insisted on: "We declare unto you glad
tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath
raised up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the second psalm,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

1. He that can see in this text a cause assumed of the filiation of

OF THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 199

Christ that should relate to the resurrection, I confess is sharper
sighted than I. This I know, that if Christ were made the Son of
God by his resurrection from the dead, he was not the Son of God
who died, for that preceded this his making to be the Son of God.
But that God gave his only-begotten Son to die, that he spared
not his only Son, but gave him up to death, I think is clear in
Scripture, if any thing be so.

2. Paul seems to interpret this place to me, when he informs us
that "Christ was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the
resurrection from the dead," Rom. i. 4. Not that he was made so,
but he was "declared" or made known to be so, when, being "cruci
fied through weakness, he lived by the power of God," 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ;
which power also was his own, John x. 18.

According as was before intimated, Grotius interprets these words,
" Thou art my Son, this day have , I begotten thee," " I (have made
thee a king ; which," he says, " was fulfilled in that, when all power
was given him in heaven and earth, Matt, xxviii. 18 ; as Justin in
his colloquy with Trypho : lore yiviffiv aiiT-ou "Ktyuv ytvsG&at, t%6rou n
yvuffig alrou ipsXXs ysvssSat."1 (1.) But then he was the Son of God
before his resurrection, for he was the Son of God by his being be
gotten of him : which as it is false, so contrary to his own gloss on
Luke i. 35. (2.) Christ was a king before his resurrection, and owned
himself so to be, as hath been showed. (3.) Justin's words are suited
to our exposition of this place. He was said to be then begotten,
because then he was made known to be so the Son of God. (4.) That
these words are not applied to Christ, in their first sense, in respect of
his resurrection, [is evident] from the pre-eminence assigned unto him
above angels by virtue of this expression, Heb. i. 5, which he had
before his death, chap. i. 6. Nor, (5.) Are the words here used to
prove the resurrection, which is done in the verses following, out of
Isaiah and another psalm, " And as concerning that he raised him up
from the dead," etc., Acts xiii. 34, 35. But then, —

3. It is not an interpretation of the meaning of that passage in
the psalm which Paul, Acts xiii., insists on, but the proving that
Christ was the Son of God, as in that psalm he was called, by his
resurrection from the dead ; which was the great manifesting cause
of his deity in the world.

What Mr B. intends by the next place mentioned by him I know
not. It is Rev. i. 5, " And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful
witness, and the first begotten of the dead." That Christ was the
first who was raised from the dead to a blessed and glorious immor
tality, and is thence called the first-begotten of them, or from the
dead, and that all that rise to such an immortality rise after him,

1 " 0 fill mi, hodie te genui, id est, Regem te fed. Hoc in Christo impletum, cum «»'
data omnis potestas in coelo ei in terra, Matt, xxviii. 18," etc. — Grot, in loc.

200 VINDICLE EVANGELKLE.

and by virtue of his resurrection, is most certain and granted ; but
that from thence he is that only-begotten Son of God, though
thereby he was only " declared" so to be, there is not the least tittle
in the text giving occasion to such an apprehension.

And the same also is affirmed of the following place of Col. i. 18,
where the same words are used again: "He is the head of the church,
who is the beginning, vpur6roxo$ sx TUV vsxpuv, — the first-born of the
dead." Only I shall desire our catechist to look at his leisure a little
higher into the chapter, where he will find him called also vpuToroxos
KOLCIIS xriffsus, " the first-born of all the creation;" so that he must
surely be vrpuroToxos before his resurrection. Nay, he is so the first
born of every creature as to be none of them;1 for by him they were
all created, verse 16. He who is so before all creatures as to be
none of them, but that they are all created by him, is " God blessed
for ever:" which when our catechist disproves, he shall have me for
one of his disciples.

Of the same kind is that which Mr B. next urgeth from Heb. i.
4, 5, only it hath this farther disadvantage, that both the verses going
immediately before and that immediately following after do inevit
ably evince that the constitutive cause of the sonship of Jesus Christ,
d, priori, is in his participation of the divine nature, and that it is
only manifested by any ensuing consideration. Verses 2, 3, the
Holy Ghost tells us that " by him God made the worlds, who is the
brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person;" and
this as the Son of God, antecedent to any exaltation as mediator.
And verse 6, "He bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, and
saith, Let all the angels of God worship him/' He is the first-be
gotten before his bringing into the world ; and that this is proved by
the latter clause of the verse shall be afterward demonstrated. Be
tween both these, much is not like to be spoken against the eternal
sonship of Christ. Nor is the apostle only declaring his pre-emi
nence above the angels upon the account of that name of his, the "Son
of God," which he is called upon record in the Old Testament, but
the causes also of that appellation he had before declared.

The last place urged to this purpose is of the same import. It is
Heb. v. 5, " So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high
priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have
I begotten thee." When Mr B. proves any thing more towards his
purpose from this place, but only that Christ did not of his own ac-

1 So that xfOTorfxot yeiifftt; uriffiia; is, I <ri%h}; <jrpl vfiifns Kritrius, qui genitus est prior
omni creatura, vel ante omnem creaturam, for so itfuras sometimes signifies compara
tively. Arist. Ayibus. 484, vefurot tutfiiov, id est, xf'orifoi, Johan. i. 15; <jt(uT<n pou >?», that
is, vrporiftf and 1 Johan. iv. 19, vpu-rm Yiya.^n<rtv. that is, xfortfos. His generation was
before the creation, indeed eternal. Tertullian saith so too, Lib. de Trinitate : " Quo-
modo primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quia secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam
ex Deo Patre Sermo processit."

OF THE PERSON OF JESUG CHRIST. 201

cord undertake the office of a mediator, but was designed to it of
God his Father, who said unto him, "Thou art my Son, to-day
have I begotten thee," declaring him so to be with power after his
resurrection, I shall acknowledge him to have better skill in disput
ing than as yet I am convinced he is possessed of.

And thus have I cleared the eternal sonship of Jesus Christ, and
evinced the vanity of attempting to fix his prerogative therein upon
any other account, not doubting but that all who love him in sin
cerity will be zealous of his glory herein. For his growing up to be
the Son of God by degrees, to be made a God in process of time, to be
the adopted Son of God, to be the Son of God upon various accounts
of diverse kinds, inconsistent with one another, to have had such a
conception and generation as modesty forbids to think or express,
not to have been the Son of God until after his death, and the like
monstrous figments, I hope he will himself keep his own in an ever
lasting abhorring of.

The farther confirmation of the deity of Christ, whereby Mr
B/s whole design will be obviated, and the vindication of the tes
timonies wherewith it is so confirmed from his masters, is the work
designed for the next chapter.

There are yet remaining of this chapter two or three questions
looking the same way with those already considered, which will, upon
the principles already laid down and insisted on, easily and in very
few words be turned aside from prejudicing the eternal deity of the
Son of God. His 10th, then, is, —

"What saith the Son himself concerning the prerogative of God the
Father above him ? " and answer is given John xiv. 28 ; Mark xiii. 32 ;
Matt. xxiv. 36: whereunto is subjoined another of the same, "What
saith the apostle Paul?— A. 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28, xi. 3, iii. 22, 23."

The intendment of these questions being the application of what
is spoken of Christ, either as mediator or as man, unto his person,
to the exclusion of any other consideration, namely, that of a divine
nature therein, the whole of Mr B/s aim in them is sufficiently
already disappointed. It is true, there is an order, yea, a subordi
nation, in the persons of the Trinity themselves, whereby the Son, as
to his personality, may be said to depend on the Father, being be
gotten of him; but that is not the subordination here aimed at by
Mr B., but that which he underwent by dispensation as mediator, or
which attends him in respect of his human nature. All the diffi
culty that may arise from these kinds of attribution to Christ the
apostle abundantly salves in the discovery of the rise and occasion of
them, Phil. ii. 7-9. He who was in the form of God, and equal to
him, was in the form of a servant, whereunto he humbled himself,
his servant, and less than he. And there is no more difficulty in the
questions wherewith Mr B. amuses himself and his disciples than

202 VINDICLE EVANGELIC.E.

there was in that wherewith our Saviour stopped the mouth of the
Pharisees, — namely, how Christ could be the son of David, and yet
his Lord, whom he worshipped. For the places of Scripture in
particular urged by Mr B., [such as] John xiv. 28, says our Saviour,
" My Father is greater than I" (mittens misso, says Grotius himself,
referring the words to office, not nature), which he was and is in
respect of that work of mediation which he had undertaken; but
" inaBqualitas officii non tollit sequalitatem naturas."1 A king's son
is of the same nature with his father, though he may be employed by
him in an inferior office. He that was less than his Father as to the
work of mediation, being the Father's servant therein, is equal to
him as his Son, as God to be blessed for ever. Mark xiii. 32, Matt,
xxiv. 36, affirm that the Father only knows the times and seasons
mentioned, not the angels, nor the Son ; and yet, notwithstanding,
it was very truly said of Peter to Christ, " Lord, thou knowest all
things," John xxi. 17. He that in and of the knowledge and wis
dom which as man he had, and wherein he grew from his infancy,
knew not that day, yet as he knew all things knew it; it was not
hidden from him, being the day by him appointed. Let Mr B.
acknowledge that his knowing all things proves him to be God, and
we will not deny but his not knowing the day of judgment proves
him to have another capacity, and to be truly man.

As man he took on him those affections which we call pvaixa xai
a5/a£A?jra cra^, amongst which, or consequently unto which, he might
be ignorant of some things.2 In the meantime, he who made all
things, as Christ did, Heb. i. 2, knew their end as well as their be
ginning. He knew the Father, and the day by him appointed; yea,
all things that the Father hath were his, and " in him were hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3.

Paul speaks to the same purpose, 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. The king
dom that Christ doth now peculiarly exercise is his economical
mediatory kingdom ; which shall have an end put to it when the
whole of his intendment in that work shall be fulfilled and accom
plished. But that he is not also sharer with his Father in that uni
versal monarchy which, as God by nature, he hath over all, this doth
not at all prove. All the argument from this place is but this :
" Christ shall cease to be mediator; therefore he is not God." And
that no more is here intended is evident from the expression of it,
"Then shall the Son himself be subject;" which if it intend any

1 " Ideo autem nusquam Rcriptum est, quod Dens Pater major sit Spiritu Sancto, vel
Spiritus Sanctus minor Deo Patre ; quia non sic assumpta est creatura in qua appare-
ret S. S. sicut assumptus est films hominis, in qua forma ipsius Verbi Dei persona prse-
sentaretur." — August, lib. i. de Trinit. cap. vi.

A.UTO; (frit o ng xai ftevof vltf, a vrfiv » A£?a.apt, yiviffdtt uv xai itri If^areav, tfioxo~
i^ftt.; foifitf xai v\tx.ia. xa.ro, au.px.a.- ?£«/ yaf till Storns ttvrau ro <ri>.tiov. — ProcluS. Epis-

cop. Constan. Ep. ad Armenios.

OF THE PEESON OF JESUS CHRIST. 203

thing but the ceasing from the administration of the mediatory
kingdom, wherein the human nature is a sharer, it would prove that,
as Jesus Christ is mediator, he is not in subjection to his Father,
which himself abundantly hath manifested to be otherwise. Of
1 Cor. xi. 3, and iii. 22, 23, there is the same reason, both speaking
of Christ as mediator; whence that no testimony can be produced
against his deity hath been declared.

He adds, 12th, " Q. Howbeit, is not Christ dignified, as with the
title of Lord, so also with that of God, in the Scripture? — A. [John
xx. 28,] Thomas said, " My Lord and my God." Verily, if Thomas
said that Christ was his God, and said true, Mr B. is to blame who
denies him to be God at all. With this one blast of the Spirit of
the Lord is his fine fabric of religion blown to the ground. And it
may be supposed that Mr B. made mention of this portion of Scrip
ture that he might have the honour of cutting his own throat and
destroying his own cause; or rather, that God, in his righteous judg
ment, hath forced him to open his mouth to his own shame. What
ever be the cause of it, Mr B. is very far from escaping this sword of
the Lord, either by his insinuation in the present query, or diversion
in the following. For the present, it was not the intent of Thomas to
dignify Christ with titles, but to make a plain confession of his faith,
being called upon by Christ to believe. In this state he professes
that he believes him to be his Lord and his God. Thomas doubtless
was a Christian ; and Mr B. tells us that Christians have but one
God, chap. i. ques. 1, Eph. iv. 6. Jesus Christ, then, being the God
of Thomas, he is the Christians' one God, if Mr B. may be believed.
It is not, then, the dignifying of Christ with titles (which it is not for
men to do), but the naked confession of a believer's faith, that in these
words is expressed. Christ is the Lord and God of a believer ; ergo
the only true God, as 1 John v. 20. Mr B. perhaps will tell you
he was made a God ; so one abomination begets another, — infidelity
idolatry ; — of this afterward. But yet he was not, according to his
companions, made a God before his ascension, which was not yet
when Thomas made his solemn confession.

Some attempt also is made upon this place by Grotius. Kai 6 Qtic,
pov. " Here first," saith he, " in the story of the gospel, is this word
found ascribed by the apostle unto Jesus Christ" (which Maldonate
before him observed for another purpose), "to wit, after he had by his
resurrection proved himself to be him from whom life, and that eter
nal, ought to be expected. And this custom abode in the church,
as appears not only in the apostolical writings, Rom. ix. 5, and of
the ancient Christians, as may be seen in Justin Martyr against
Trypho, but in the Epistle also of Pliny unto Trajan, where he says
that the Christians sang verses to Christ as to God j"1 or, as the

1 " Hie primum ea vox in narratione Evangelic* reperitur ab Apostolis Jesu tributa,

204- VINDICLE EVANGELICAL

words are in the author, " Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum.
invicem." What the intendment of this discourse is is evident to
all those who are a little exercised in the writings of them whom our
author all along in his Annotations takes care of. That Christ was
now made a God at his resurrection, and is so called from the power
wherewith he was intrusted at his ascension, is the aim of this dis
course. Hence he tells us it became a " custom" to call him God
among the Christians, which also abode amongst them ; and to
prove this " custom" he wrests that of the apostle, Rorn. ix. 5, where
the deity of Christ is.spoken of, in opposition to his human nature or
his flesh, that he had of the Jews, plainly asserting a divine nature in
him, calling him God subjectively, and not only by way of attribution.
But this is, it seems, a "custom," taken up after Christ's resurrection?
to call him God, and so continued ; though John testifies expressly
that he was God in the beginning. It is true, indeed, much is not to
be urged from the expressions of the apostles before the pouring out
of the Spirit upon them, as to any eminent acquaintance Avith
spiritual things ; yet they had before made this solemn confession
that Christ was the " Son of the living God," Matt. xvi. 16-18, which
is to the full as much as what is here by Thomas expressed. That
the primitive Christians worshipped Christ and invocated him not
only as a god, but professing him to be " the true God and eternal
life," we have better testimonies than that of a blind Pagan, who
knew nothing of them nor their ways, but by the report of apostates,
as himself confesseth. But learned men must have leave to make
known their readings and observations, whatever become of the sim
plicity of the Scripture.

To escape the dint of this sword, Mr B. nextly queries: " Q.
Was he so the God of Thomas as that he himself in the meantime
did not acknowledge another to be his God? — A. John xx. 17; Rev.
iii. 12."

True, he who, being partaker of the divine essence, in the form of
God, was Thomas' God, as he was mediator, the head of his church,
interceding for them, acknowledged his Father to be his God ; yea,
God may be said to be his God upon the account of his sonship and
personality, in which regard he hath his deity of his Father, and
is "God of God." Not that he is a secondary, lesser, made god, a
hero, semideus, as Mr B. fancies him, but " God blessed for ever," in
order of subsistence depending on the Father.

Of the same nature is the last question, namely, " Have you any
passage in the Scripture where Christ, at the same time that he

postquam scilicet sua resurrectione probaverat, se esse a quo vita et quidem setcrna
exspectari deberet, Vide supra, xi. 25. Mansit deinde ille mos in ecclcsia, ut apparet
non tantum in scriptis Apostolicis ut, Rom. ix. 5, et veterum Christianorum, ut videre
est apud Justinum Martyrem contra Tryphonem, sed et in Plinii ad Trajanum Epis-
tola, ubi ait Christianos Christo, ut Deo, carmina cecinisse." — Grot, in loc.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 205

hath the appellation of God given to him, is said to have a God ? —
A. Heb. i. 8, 9."

By Mr B/s favour, Christ is not said to have a God, though God
be said to be his God. Verse 8, Christ, by Mr B/s confession, is
expressly called God. He is, then, the one true God with the Father,
or another. If the first, what doth he contend about ? If the second,
he is a god that is not God by nature,' — that is, not the one God of
Christians, — and consequently an idol ; and indeed such is the Christ
that Mr B. worshippeth. Whether this will be waived by the help
of that expression, verse 9, " God, thy God," where it is expressly
spoken of him in respect of his undertaking the office of mediation,
wherein he was " anointed of God with the oil of gladness above his
fellows," God and his saints will judge.

Thus the close of this chapter, through the good, wise hand of the
providence of God, leaving himself and his truth not without witness,
hath produced instances and evidences of the truth opposed abun
dantly sufficient, without farther inquiry and labour, to discover the
sophistry and vanity of all Mr B/s former queries and insinuations;
for which let him have the praise.

CHAPTER Till.

An entrance into the examination of the Racovian Catechism in the business of
the deity of Christ — Their arguments against it answered ; and testimonies

of the eternity of Christ vindicated.

III. ALTHOUGH the testimonies and arguments for the deity -of
Christ might be urged and handled to a better advantage, if liberty
might be used to insist upon them in the method that seems most na
tural for the clearing and confirmation of this important truth, yet that
I may do two works at once, I shall insist chiefly, if not only, on those
texts of Scripture which are proposed to be handled and answered by
the author or authors of the Racovian Catechism ; which work takes
up near one-fourth part of their book, and, as it is well known, there
is no part of it wherein so much diligence, pains, sophistry, and cun
ning are employed as in that chapter, "Of the person of Christ," which
by God's assistance we are entering upon the consideration of.

Those who have considered their writings know that the very sub
stance of all they have to say for the evading of the force of our
testimonies for the eternal deity of Christ is comprised in that
chapter, there being not any thing material that any of them have
elsewhere written there omitted. And those who are acquainted
with them, their persons and abilities, do also know that their great
strength and ability for disputation lies in giving plausible answers,

206 VINDICLE EVANGELICJS.

and making exceptions against testimonies, cavilling at every word
and letter ; being in proof and argument for the most part weak and
contemptible. And therefore, in this long chapter, of near a hundred
pages, all that themselves propose by way of argument against the
deity of Christ is contained in two or three at the most, the residue
being wholly taken up with exceptions to so many of the texts of
Scripture wherein the deity of Christ is asserted as they have been
pleased to take notice of, — a course which themselves are forced to
apologize for as unbecoming catechists.1

I shall, then, the Lord assisting, consider that whole chapter of
theirs in both parts of it, — as to what they have to say for them
selves, or to plead against the deity of Christ, as also what they
bring forth for their defence against the evidence of the light that
shineth from the texts whose consideration they propose to them
selves, to which many of like sort may be added.

I shall only inform the reader that this is a business quite beyond
my first intention in this treatise, to whose undertaking I have been
prevailed on by the desires and entreaties of some who knew that
I had this other work imposed on me.

Their first question and answer are : —

Ques. Declare now to me ivhat I ought to know concerning Jesus Christ f

Ans. Thou must know that of the things of which thou oughtest to know, some
belong to the essence of Christ and some to his office.

Q. WTiat are they which relate to his person ?

A. That only that by nature he is a true man, even as the Scriptures do often
witness, amongst others, 1 Tim. ii. 5, 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; such a one as God of old
promised by the prophets, and such as the creed, commonly called the Apostles',
witnesseth him to be; which, with us, all Christians embrace.2

Ans. That Jesus Christ was a true man, in his nature like unto
us, sin only excepted, we believe, and do abhor the abominations
of Paracelsus, Wigelius, etc., and the Familists amongst ourselves,
who destroy the verity of his human nature. But that the Soci-
nians believe the same, that he is a man in heaven, whatever he
was upon earth, I presume the reader will judge that it may be
justly questioned, from what I have to offer (and shall do it in its
place) on that account. But that this is all that we ought to know
concerning the person of Christ is a thing of whose folly and vanity
our catechists will be one day convinced. The present trial of it
between us depends in part on the consideration of the scriptures

1 Interpres Lect. Prefat. ad Cat. Eac.

8 " Rogatum te velim, ut mihi ca de Jesu Christo exponas, quse me scire oporteat ?
— Sciendum tibi est, quaedam ad essentiam Jesu Christi, qusedam ad illius munus re-
ferri, quse te scire oportet.

" Quaenam ea sunt quse ad personam ipsius referuntur ? — Id solum, quod natura sit
homo verus, quemadmodum ea de re crebro Scripturse sacrae testantur, inter alias,
1 Tim. ii. 5, et 1 Cor. xv. 21 ; qualem olim Deus per prophetas promiserat, et qualem
etiam esse testatur fidei symbolum, quod vulgo Apostolicum vocant, quod nobiscunx
universi Christian! amplectuntur."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 207

which shall afterward be produced to evince the contrary, our plea
from whence shall not here be anticipated. The places of Scripture
they mention prove him to be a true man, — that as man he died and
rose ; but that he who was man was not also in one person God (the
name of man there expressing the person, not the nature of man only)
they prove not. The prophets foretold that Christ should be such
a man as should also be the Son of God, begotten of him, Ps. ii. 7 ;
"The mighty God," Isa. ix. 6, 7; "Jehovah," Jer. xxiii. 6; "The LORD
of hosts," Zech. ii. 8, 9. And the Apostles' Creed also (as it is un
justly called) confesseth him to be the only Son of God, our Lord,
and requires us to believe in him as we do in God the Father; which
if he were not God were an accursed thing, Jer. xvii. 5.

Q. Is therefore the Lord Jesus a pure (or mere) man ?

A. By no means ; for he was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
Mary, and therefore from his very conception and birth was the Son of God, as
we read, Luke i. 35, that I may not bring other causes, which thou wilt after
ward find in the person of Christ, which most evidently declare that the Lord
Jesus can by no means be esteemed a pure (or mere) man.1

Ans. 1. But I have abundantly demonstrated that Christ neither
was nor was called the Son of God upon the account here men
tioned, nor any other whatever intimated in the close of the answer,
but merely and solely on that of his eternal generation of the es
sence of his Father.

2. The inquiry is after the essence of Christ, which receives not
any alteration by any kind of eminency or dignity that belongs to
his person. If Christ be by essence only man, let him have what
dignity or honour he can have possibly conferred upon him, let him
be born by what means soever, as to his essence and nature he is
a man still, but a man, and not more than a man, — that is, purus
homo, a " mere man," — and not <p vest Qsoe, " God by nature," but
such a god as the Gentiles worshipped, Gal. iv. 8. His being made
God and the Son of God afterward, which our catechists pretend,
relating to office and dignity, not to his nature, exempts him not
at all from being a mere man. This, then, is but a flourish to de
lude poor simple souls into a belief of their honourable thoughts of
Christ, whom yet they think no otherwise of than the Turks do of
Mohammed, nor believe he was otherwise indeed, or is to Christians,
than as Moses to the Jews. That which Paul speaks of the idols of
the heathen, that they were not gods by nature, may, according to
the apprehension of these catechists, be spoken of Christ ; notwith-

1 " Ergo Dominus Jesus est purus homo ? — Nullo pacto ; etenim est conceptus e
Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, eoque ab ipsa conceptione et ortu Filius Dei
est, ut ea de re Luc. i. 35 legimus, ubi angelus Mariam ita alloquitur, Spiritus Sanc-
tus superveniet in te, etc., ut alias causas non afieram, quas postmodum in Jesu Christi
persona deprehendes, quse evidentissime ostendunt Dominum Jesum pro puro homine
nullo modo accipi posse."

208 VINDICLE EVANGELICLE.

standing any exaltation or deification that he hath received, he is
by nature no god. Yea, the apprehensions of these gentlemen
concerning Christ and his deity are the same upon the matter with
those of the heathen concerning their worthies and heroes, who,
by au avodeutfig, were translated into the number of their gods, as
Jupiter, Hercules, and others. They called them gods, indeed; but
put them close to it, they acknowledged that properly there was but
one God, but that these men were honoured as being, upon [account
of] their great worth and noble achievements, taken up to blessedness
and power. Such an hero, an Hermes or Mercury, do they make of
Jesus Christ, who, for his faithful declaring the will of God, Avas
denied; but in respect of essence and nature, which here is inquired
after, if he be any thing according to their principles (of making
which supposal I shall give the reader a fair account), he was, he is,
and will be, a mere man to all eternity, and no more. They allow
him no more, as to his essence, than that wherein he was like us
in all things, sin only excepted, Heb. ii. 17.

Q. You said a little above that the Lord Jesus is by nature man; hath he also
a divine nature f

A. No ; for that is not only repugnant to sound reason, but also to the
Scriptures.1

But this is that which is now to be put to the trial, Whether the
asserting of the deity of Christ be repugnant to the Scriptures or
no. And as we shall see in the issue that as these catechists haye
not been able to answer or evade the evidence of any one testimony
of Scripture, of more than an hundred that are produced for the-
confirmation of the truth of his eternal deity, so, notwithstanding
the pretended flourish here at the entrance, that they are not able
to produce any one place of Scripture, so much as in appearance,
rising up against it. [As] for that right reason, which in this matter
of mere divine revelation they boast of, and give it the pre-eminence
in their disputes against the person of Christ above the Scripture,
unless they discover the consonancy of it to the word, to the law and
testimony, whatever they propose, on that account may be rejected
with as much facility as it is proposed. But yet, if by " right reason"
they understand reason so far captivated to the obedience of faith as
to acquiesce in whatever God hath revealed, and to receive it as
truth, — than which duty there is not any more eminent dictate of
right reason indeed, — we for ever deny the first part of this assertion,
and shall now attend to the proof of it. Nor do we here plead that
reason is blind and corrupted, and that the natural man cannot dis
cern the things of God, and so require that men do prove themselves

1 " Dixeras paulo superius Dominum Jesum natura esse homlnem ; an idem habet
naturam divinam ? — Nequaquam ; nam id lion soluin ratioiii gauge, verum etiam di-
viuis litcris repugnat."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 209

regenerate before we admit them to judge of the truth of the pro
positions under debate; which though necessary for them who would
know the gospel for their own good, so as to be wise unto salvation,
yet it being the grammatical and literal sense of propositions as laid
down in the word of the Scripture that we are to judge of in this
case, we require no more of men, to the purpose in hand, but an assent
to this proposition (which if they will not give, we can by undeni
able demonstration compel them to), " Whatever God, who is prima
veritas, hath revealed is true, whether we can comprehend the
things revealed or no ; " which being granted, we proceed with our
catechists in their attempt.

Q. Declare how it is contrary to right reason.

A. I. In this regard, that two substances having contrary properties cannot
meet in one person ; such as are to be mortal and immortal, to have a beginning
and to want a beginning, to be changeable and unchangeable. 2. Because two
natures, each of them constituting a person, cannot likewise agree or meet in one
person; for instead of one there must (then) be two persons, and so also two
Christs would exist, whom all without controversy acknowledge to be one, and
his person one.1

And this is all which these gentlemen offer to make good their
assertion that the deity of Christ is repugnant to right reason ; which,
therefore, upon what small pretence they have done, will quickly ap
pear.

1. It is true that there cannot be such a personal uniting of two
substances with such diverse properties as by that union to make an
exequation, or an equalling of those diverse properties ; but that there
may not be such a concurrence and meeting of such different sub
stances in one person, both of them preserving entire to themselves
their essential properties, which are so diverse, there is nothing
pleaded nor pretended. And to suppose that there cannot be such
an union is to beg the thing in question against the evidence of many
express testimonies of Scripture, without tendering the least induce
ment for any to grant their request.

2. In calling these properties of the several natures in Christ " ad
verse" or " contrary," they would insinuate a consideration of them as
of qualities in a subject, whose mutual contrariety should prove de
structive to the one, if not both, or, by a mixture, cause an exurgency
of qualities of another temperature. But neither are these properties
such qualities, nor are they inherent in any common subject; but [they
are] inseparable adjuncts of the different natures of Christ, never

1 " Cedo qui ration! sanae repugnat ? — Primo, ad eum modum, quod duae substantiae,
proprietatibus adversae, coire in unam personara nequeant ; ut sunt mortalem et im-
mortalem esse, principium habere et principio carere, mutabilem et immutabilem ex-
istere. Deinde, quod duae naturae, personam singulaa constituentes, in unam personam
convenire itidem nequeant ; nam loco unius duas personas esse oporteret, atque ita duos
Christos existere, quern unum esse, et unam ipsius personam omnes citra omnem con-
troversiam agnoscunt."

VOL. XII. 14

210 VINDICLE EVANGELIC JS.

mixed with one another, nor capable of any such thing to eternity, nor
ever becoming properties of the other nature, which they belong not
•unto, though all of them do denominate the person wherein both the
natures do subsist. So that instead of pleading reason, which they
pretended they would, they do nothing, in this first part of their
answer, but beg the thing in question ; which, being of so much im
portance and concernment to our souls, is never like to be granted
them on any such terms. Will Christ, on their entreaties, cease to be
God?

Neither is their second pretended argument of any other kind.

1. We deny that the human nature of Christ had any such subsist
ence of its own as to give it a proper personality, being from the
time of its conception assumed into subsistence with the Son of God.
This we prove by express texts of Scripture, Isa. vii. 1 4, ix. 6 ; John
i. 14 ; Horn. i. 3, ix. 5 ; Heb. ii. 16 ; Luke i. 35 ; Heb. ix. 14 ; Acts
iii. 15, xx. 28 ; Phil. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8, etc. ; and by arguments
taken from the assigning of all the diverse properties by them men
tioned before, and sundry others, to the same person of Christ, etc.
That we would take it for granted that this cannot be, is the modest
request of these gentlemen with whom we have to do.

2. If by natures constituting persons they mean those who, ante
cedently to their union, have actually done so, we grant they cannot
meet in one person, so that upon this union they should cease to be
two persons. The personality of either of them being destroyed,
their different beings could not be preserved. But if by " constitut
ing" they understand only that which is so in potentia, or a next pos
sibility of constituting a person, then, as before, they only beg of us
that we would not believe that the person of the Word did assume
the human nature of Christ, that " holy thing that was born of the
Virgin," into subsistence with itself; which, for the reasons before
mentioned, and others like to them, we cannot grant.

And this is the substance of all that these men plead and make a
noise with in the world, in an opposition to the eternal deity of the
Son of God ! This pretence of reason (which evidently comes short
of being any thing else) is their shield and buckler in the cause they
have unhappily undertaken. When they tell us of Christ's being
hungry and dying, we say it was in the human nature, wherein he
was obnoxious to such things no less than we, being therein made
like unto us in all things, sin only excepted ; — when of his submis
sion and subjection to his Father, we tell them it is in respect of the
office of mediator, which he willingly undertook, and that his in
equality unto him as to that office doth no way prejudice his equality
with him in respect of his nature and being. But when, with the
Scriptures and arguments from thence, as clear and convincing as if
they were written with the beams of the sun, we prove our dear Lord

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 211

Jesus, in respect of a divine nature, whereof he was partaker from
eternity, to be God, blessed for ever, they tell us it cannot be that
two such diverse natures as those of God and man should be united
in one person ; and it cannot be so, because it cannot be so, — there is
no such union among other things! And these things must be, that
those who are approved may be tried. But let us hear them out.

Q. But whereas they show that Christ consisteth of a divine and human nature,
as a man consisteth of soul and body, what is to be answered them?

A. That here is a very great difference ; for they say that the two natures in
Christ are so united that Christ is both God and man. But the soul and body
are in that manner conjoined in man, that a man is neither soul nor body ; for
neither soul nor body doth singly of itself constitute a person. But as the di
vine nature by itself constitutes a person, so it is necessary that the human nature
should do.1

Ans. 1. In what sense it may be said that Christ, that is, the
person of Christ, consisteth of a divine and human nature, was be
fore declared. The person of the Son of God assumed the human
nature into subsistence with itself, and both in that one person are
Christ.

2. If our catechists have no more to say, to the illustration given
of the union of the two natures in the person of Christ by that of the
soul and body in one human person, but that there is " a great dif
ference" in something between them, they do but filch away the
grains that are allowed to every similitude, and show wherein the
comparates differ, but answer not to that wherein they do agree.

3. All that is intended by this similitude is, to show that besides
the change of things, one into another, by the loss of one, as of
water into wine by Christ, and besides the union that is in physi
cal generation by mixture, whereby and from whence some third
thing ariseth, that also there is a substantial -union, whereby one
thing is not turned into another nor mixed with it. And the end of
using this similitude (which, to please our catechists, we can forbear,
acknowledging that there is not among created beings any thing
that can fully represent this, which we confess " without controversy
to be a great mystery") is only to manifest the folly of that assertion
of their master on John i., " That if the 'Word be made flesh' in our
sense, it must be turned into flesh ; for," saith he, " one thing cannot
be made another but by charge, conversion, and mutation into it:"
the absurdity of which assertion is sufficiently evinced by the sub
stantial union of soul and body, made one person, without that alter-

1 " Cum vero illi ostendunt, Christum sic ex natura divina et humana constare, quem-
admodum homo ex animo et corpore constet, quid illis respondendum ? — Permagnum
hie esse discrimen ; illi enim aiunt, duas naturas in Christo ita unitas esse, ut Christus
sit Deus et homo. Anima vero et corpus ad eum modum in homine conjuncta sunt, ut
nee anima nee corpus ipse homo sit, nee enim anima nee corpus sigillatim personam
constituunt. At ut natura divina per se constituit personam, ita humana constituat
per se necesse est."

212 VINDTCLE EVANGELIOE.

ation and Change of their natures which is pleaded for. Neither is
the Word made flesh by alteration, but by union.

4. It is confessed that the soul is not said to be made the body,
nor the body said to be made the soul, as the Word is said to be
made flesh; for the union of soul and body is not a union of distinct
substances subsisting in one common subsistence, but a union of two
parts of one nature, whereof the one is the form of the other. And
herein is the dissimilitude of that similitude. Hence will that pre
dication be justified in Christ, " The Word was made flesh," without
any change or alteration, because of that subsistence whereunto the
flesh or human nature of Christ was assumed, which is common to
them both. And so it is in accidental predications. When we say
a man is made white, black, or pale, we do not intend that he is as
to his substance changed into whiteness, etc., but that he who is a
man is also become white.

5. It is true that the soul is not a person, nor the body, but a
person is the exurgency of their conjunction : and therefore we do
not say that herein the similitude is [to be] urged, for the divine
nature of Christ had its own personality antecedent to this union ;
nor is the union of his person the union of several parts of the same
nature, but the concurrence of several natures in one subsistence.

6. That it is " of necessity that Christ's human nature should of
itself constitute a person," is urged upon the old account of begging
the thing in question. This is that which in the case of Christ we
deny, and produce all the proofs before mentioned to make evident
the reason of our denial ; but our great masters here say the contrary,
and our under- catechists are resolved to believe them. Christ was a
true man, because he had the true essence of a man, soul and body,
with all their essential properties. A peculiar personality belongeth not
to the essence of a man, but to his existence in such a manner. Neither
do we deny Christ to have a person as a man, but to have a human
person: for the human nature of Christ subsisteth in that which,
though it be in itself divine, yet as to that act of sustentatiou which
it gives the human nature, is the subsistence of a man ; on which
account the subsistence of the human nature of Christ is made more
noble and excellent than that of any other man whatever.

And this is the whole plea of our catechists from reason, that where
to they so much pretend, and which they give the pre-eminence unto in
their attempts against the deity of Christ, as the chief, if not the only
engine they have to work by. And if they be thus weak in the main
body of then: forces, certainly that reserve which they pretend from
Scripture, — whereof, indeed, they have the meanest pretence and show
that ever any of the sons of men had who were necessitated to make a
plea from it in a matter of so great concernment as that now under
consideration, — will quickly disappear. Thus, then, they proceed: — |

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC.

Q. Declare, also, how it is repugnant to Scripture that Christ hath a divine
nature.

A. First, Because that the Scripture proposeth to us one only God by nature,
whom we have above declared to be the Father of Christ. Secondly, The same
Scripture testifieth that Jesus Christ was by nature a man, whereby it taketh from
him any divine nature. Thirdly, Because whatever divine thing Christ hath, the
Scripture plainly teacheth that he had it by a gift of the Father, Matt, xxviii. 18 ;
Phil. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27 ; John v. 19, x. 25. Lastly, Because the same Scripture
most evidently showing that Jesus Christ did not vindicate and ascribe all his
divine works to himself, or to any divine nature of his own, but to his Father, makes
it plain that divine nature in Christ was altogether in vain, and would have been
without any cause.1

And this is that which our catechists have to pretend from Scrip
ture against the deity of Christ, concluding that any such divine
nature in him would be superfluous and needless, — themselves being
judges. In the strength of what here they have urged, they set
themselves to evade the evidence of near fifty express texts of Scrip
ture, by themselves produced and insisted on, giving undeniable tes
timony to the truth they oppose. Let, then, what they have brought
forth be briefly considered : —

1 . The Scripture doth indeed propose unto us " one only God by
nature," and we confess that that only true God is the " Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ ; " but we say that the Son is partaker of the
Father's nature, of the same nature with him, as being his proper
Son, and, by his own testimony, one with him. He is such a Son (as
hath been declared) as is begotten of the essence of his Father ; and
is therefore God, blessed for ever. If the Father be God by nature,
so is the Son ; for he is of the same nature with the Father.

2. To conclude that Christ is not God because he is man, is plainly
and evidently to beg the thing in question. We evidently disco
ver in the person of Christ properties that are inseparable adjuncts
of a divine nature, and such also as no less properly belong to a
human nature. From the asserting of the one of these to conclude
to a denial of the other, is to beg that which they are not able to
dig for.

3. There is a twofold communication of the Father to the Son : —
(1.) By eternal generation. So the Son receives his personality, and
therein his dmne nature, from him who said unto him, " Thou art
my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." And this is so far from dis-

1 " Doce etiara, qui id rcpugnet Scripturae Christum habere divinam naturam. —
Primum, ea ratione, quod Scriptura nobis unum tantum natura Deum proponat, quern
superius demonstravimus esse Christ! Patrem. Secundo, eadem Scriptura testatur,
Jesum Christum natura esse hominem, ufc superius ostensiim est ; quo ipso illi naturam
adimit divinam. Tertio, quod quicquid divinum Christus habeat, Scriptura eum Patris
dono habere aperte doceat, Matt, xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 27; John v. 19,
x. 25. Denique cum eadem Scriptura apertissime ostendat, Jesum Christum omnia sua
facta divina non sibi, ncc alicui naturae divinse suse, sed Patri suo vindicare solitum
fuisse, planum facit, cam divinam in Christo naturam prorsus otiosam, ac sine
causa futuram fuisse."

214 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

proving the deity of Christ that it abundantly confirms it. And thi?
is mentioned, John v. 19-23. This Christ hath by nature. (2.) By
collation of gifts, honour and dignity, exaltation and glory, upon,
him as mediator, or in respect of that office which he humbled him
self to undergo, and for the full execution whereof and investiture
[where] with glory, honour, and power were needful; which is men
tioned, Matt, xxviii. 18, Phil. ii. 9, 1 Cor. xv. 27: which is by no means
derogatory to the deity of the Son ; for inequality in respect of office
is well consistent with equality in respect of nature. This Christ
hath by grace. Matt, xxviii. 18, Christ speaks of himself as tho
roughly furnished with authority for the accomplishing of the work
of mediation which he had undertaken. It is of his office, not of
his nature or essence, that he speaks. Phil. ii. 9, Christ is said to be
exalted ; which he was in respect of the real exaltation given to his
human nature, and the manifestation of the glory of his divine,
which he had with his Father before the world was, but had eclipsed
for a season. 1 Cor. xv. 27 relates to the same exaltation of Christ
as before.

4. It is false that Christ doth not ascribe the divine works which
he wrought to himself and his own divine power, although that he
often also makes mention of the Father, as by whose appointment he
wrought those works, as mediator: John v. 17, " My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work;" verse 19, " For what things soever the Father
doeth, these also doeth the Son;" verse 21, " For as the Father rais-
eth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth
whom he will." Himself wrought the works that he did, though as
to the end of his working them, which belonged to his office of me
diation, he still relates to his Father's designation and appointment.

And this is the whole of our catechists' plea from reason and
Scripture against the deity of Christ. [As] for the conclusion, of
the superfluousness and needlessness of such a divine nature in the
Mediator, as it argues them to be ignorant of the Scriptures, and of
the righteousness of God, and of the nature of sin, so it might ad
minister occasion to insist upon the demonstration of the necessity
which there was that he who was to be mediator between God and
man should be both God and man, but that I aim at brevity, and
the consideration of it may possibly fall in upon another account, so
that here I shall not insist thereon.

Nextly, then, they address themselves to that which is their proper
work (wherein they are exceedingly delighted), — namely, in giving
in exceptions against the testimonies produced for the confirmation
of the truth under consideration, which they thus enter upon: —

Q. But they endeavour to assert the divine nature of Christ from the Scrip
tures.

A. They endeavour it, indeed, diverse ways ; and that whilst they study either to

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 215

evince out of certain scriptures what is not in them, or whilst they argue per
versely from those things which are in the scriptures, and so evilly bring their
business to pass.1

These, it seems, are the general heads of our arguments for the
deity of Christ; but before we part we shall bring our catechists to
another reckoning, and manifest both that what we assert is expressly
contained in the Scriptures, and what we conclude by ratiocination
from them hath an evidence in it which they are not able to resist.
But they say, —

Q. What are those things which they labour to evince concerning Christ out of
the Scriptures, which are not contained in them ?

A. Of this sort is, as they speak, his pre-eternity ; which they endeavour to con
firm with two sorts of scriptures: — 1. Such as wherein they suppose this pre-
eternity is expressed ; 2. Such as wherein, though it be not expressed, yet they
think that it may be gathered from them.2

That we do not only " suppose," but have also as great an assurance
as the plain, evident, and redoubled testimony of the Holy Ghost
can give us of the eternity of Jesus Christ, shall be made evident in
the ensuing testimonies, both of the one sort and the other, especially
by such as are express thereunto ; for in this matter we shall very little
trouble the reader with collections and arguings, the matter inquired
after being express and evident in the words and terms of the Holy
Ghost himself. They say, then, —

Q. Which are those testimonies of Scripture which seem to them to express his
pre-eternity ?

A. They are those in which the Scripture witnesseth of Christ that he was in
the beginning, that he was in heaven, that he was before Abraham, John i. 1,
vi. 62, viii. 58.3

Before I come to the consideration of the particular places pro
posed by them to be insisted on, I shall desire to premise one or two
things; as, —

1. That it is sufficient for the disproving of their hypothesis con
cerning Christ if we prove him to have been existent before his
incarnation, whether the testimonies whereby we prove it reach ex
pressly to the proof of his eternity or no. That which they have
undertaken to maintain is, that Christ had no existence before his
conception and birth of the Virgin ; — which if it be disproved, they
do not, they cannot, deny but that it must be on the account of a

1 " Atqui illi e Scripturis illam divinam in Christo naturam asserere conantur ? — Co-
nantur quidem variis modis; idque dum student aut e scripturis quibusdam evincere
quae in iis non habentur, aut dum ex iis quae in scripturis habentur perperam ratio-
cinantur, ac male rem suam conficiunt."

2 " Quae vero sunt ilia quae illi de Christo e Scripturis evincere laborant quae illic non
habentur ? — Est illius, ut loquuntur, prseaeternitas, quam duplici scripturarum genere
approbare nituntur. Primum ejusmodi est, in quo prae-aeternitatem bane expressam
putant. Secundum, in quo licet expressa non sit, earn tamen colligi arbitran'tur."

5 " Quaenam sunt testimonia Scriptures quae videntur ipsis earn prae-setemitatem ex-
primere ? — Sunt ea in quibus Scriptura testatur de Christo, ipsum fuisse in principle,
fuisse in coelo, fuisse ante Abrahamum, Jon. i. 1, vi. 62, viii. 58."

2 1 6 VINDICLE EVAN GELICLE.

divine nature; for as to the incarnation of any pre-existing creature
(which was the Arians' madness), they disavow and oppose it.

2. That those three places mentioned are very far from being all
wherein there is express confirmation of the eternity of Christ ; and
therefore, when I have gone through the consideration of them, I
shall add some others also, which are of no less evidence and perspi
cuity than those whose vindication we are by them called unto.

To the first place mentioned they thus proceed: —

Q. What dost thou answer to the first 9

A. In the place cited there is nothing about that pre-eternity, seeing here is
mention of the beginning, which is opposed to eternity. But the word " beginning "
is almost always in the Scripture referred to the subject-matter, as may be seen,
Dan. viii. 1 ; John xv. 27, xvi. 4; Acts xi. 15: and therefore, seeing the subject-
matter here is the gospel, whose description John undertakes, without doubt,
by his word " beginning," John understood the beginning of the gospel.

This place being express to our purpose, and the matter of great
importance, I shall first confirm the truth contended for from thence,
and then remove the miserable subterfuge which our catechists have
received from their great apostles, uncle and nephew.

1. That John, thus expressly insisting on the deity of Christ in the
beginning of his Gospel, intended to disprove and condemn sundry
that were risen up in those days denying it, or asserting the creation
or making of the world to another demiurgus, we have the unques
tionable testimony of the first professors of the religion of Jesus
Christ, with as much evidence and clearness of truth as any thing
can be tendered on uncontrolled tradition ; which at least will give
some insight into the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the words.3

2. That by 6 Aoyog, howsoever rendered, Verbum or Sermo, or on
what account soever he be so called, either as being the eternal Word
and Wisdom of the Father, or as the great Kevealer of his will unto
us (which yet of itself is not a sufficient cause of that appellation, for
others also reveal the will of God unto us, Acts xx. 27, Heb. i. 1),
Jesus Christ is intended, is on all hands confessed, and may be unde
niably evinced from the context. This o A.6yog came into the world
and was rejected by his own, verse 11 ; yea, expressly, he " was made
flesh," and was " the only-begotten of the Father/' verse 14.

1 " Quid vero ad primum respondes ? — In loco citato nihil habetur de ista prseaetei-
nitate, cum hie principii mentio fiat, quod prae-seternitati opponitur. Printipii vero
vox in Scripturis fere semper ad subjectam refertur materiam, ut videre est, Dan. viii. 1 ;
Job. xv. 27, xvi. 4; Act. xi. 15: cum igitur hie subjecta sit materia evangelium, cujus
descriptionem suscepit Johannes, sine dubio per vocem hanc principii, principium evan-
gelii Johannes intellexit."

J Iren. adv. Haeres. lib. iii. cap. xi. ; Epiphan. lib. i. torn. ii. haeres. 27, 28, 30, etc., lib.
ii. torn. ii. haeres. 69 ; Theod. Epitom. Haeret. lib. ii. ; Euseb. Hist. lib. iii. cap. xxvii.
" Causam post alios haec scribendi praecipuam tradunt omnes (veteres), ut veneno in
Ecclesiam jam turn sparso, authoritate sua, quse apud omnes Christianum nomen pro-
fitentes non poUerat non esse maxima, medicinam faceret." — Grot. Praefat. ad Annotat.
in Evang. Johan.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED,' ETC. 217

8. That the whole of our argument from this place is very far from
consisting in that expression, " In the beginning," though that, re
lating to the matter whereof the apostle treats, doth evidently evince
the truth pleaded for. It is part of our catechists' trade so to divide
the words of Scripture that their main import and tendence may not
be perceived. In one place they answer to the first words, " In the
beginning;" in another, to "He was with God, and he was God;"
in a third, to that, "All things were made by him ;" in a fourth (all at
a great distance one from another), to " The Word was made flesh:"
which desperate course of proceeding argues that their cause is also
desperate, and that they durst not meet this one testimony, as by the
Holy Ghost placed and ordered for the confirmation of our faith,
without such a bold mangling of the text as that instanced in.

4. I shall, then, insist upon the whole of this testimony as the
words are placed in the contexture by the Holy Ghost, and vindicate
them from what, in several places, they have excepted against several
parcels of them. Thus, then, from these words (these divine words,
Avhose very reading reclaimed as eminent a scholar as the world en
joyed in his days from atheism1) we proceed.

He that was in the beginning before the creation of the world,
before any thing of all things that are made was made, who was
then with God, and was God, who made all things, and without
whom nothing was made, in whom was life, — he is God by nature,
blessed for ever ; nor is there, in the whole Scripture, a more glorious
and eminent description of God, by his attributes, names, and works,
than here is given of him concerning whom all these things are
spoken. But now all this is expressly affirmed of the " Word that
was made flesh;" that is, confessedly, of Jesus Christ: therefore he
is God by nature, blessed for ever. Unto the several parts of this
plain and evident testimony, in several places they except several
things ; thinking thereby to evade that strength and light which each
part yields to other as they lie, and all of them to the whole. I shall
consider them in order as they come to hand.

Against that expression, " In the beginning," they except, in the
place mentioned above, that it doth not signify pre-eternity, which
hath no beginning. But, —

1. This impedes not at all the existence of Jesus Christ before
the creation, although it denies that his eternity is expressly asserted.
Now, to affirm that Christ did exist before the whole creation, and
made all things, doth no less prove him to be no more a creature,

1 " Novum Testamentum diviiiitus oblatum aperio. Aliud agenti exhibet se mihi
OKpectu primo augustissimum illud caput Johannis evangelistas et apostoli, In prin
ciple erat Ve.rbum. Lego partem capitis, et ita commoveor legens, ut repente diviuita~
tern arguinenti, et script! majestatem, auctoritatemque senserim, longo intervallo omni
bus eloquentiae humanse viribus pneeuntem. Horrebat corpus, stupebat animus, et
totum ilium diem sic afficiebar, ut qui esscm, ipsi mihi incertus viderer esse." — Fran-
cisc. Juiiius.

218 VINDICI.E EVANGELIC^.

but the eternal God, than the most express testimony of his eternity
doth or can do. 2. Though eternity has no beginning, and the
sense of these words cannot be, " In the beginning of eternity," yet
eternity is before all things, and " In the beginning" may be the de
scription of eternity, as it is plainly, Prov. viii. 23. " From everlast
ing," and " In the beginning, before the earth was," are of the same
import. And the Scripture saying that " In the beginning the Word
was," not " was made," doth as evidently express eternity as it doth
in these other phrases of, " Before the world was," or " Before the
foundation of the world," which more than once it insists on, John
xvii. 5. 3. By " In the beginning" is intended before the creation
of all things. What will it avail our catechists if it do not expressly
denote eternity? Why, the word "beginning" is to be interpreted
variously, according to the subject-matter spoken of, as Gen. i. 1 ;
which being here the gospel, it is the beginning of the gospel that
is intended! But, — •

Be it agreed that the word "beginning" is to be understood accord
ing to the subject-matter whereunto it is applied, yet that the apostle
doth firstly and nextly treat of the gospel, as to the season of its
preaching, is most absurd. He treats evidently and professedly of the
person of the author of the gospel, of the Word that was God and was
made flesh. And that this cannot be wrested to the sense intended
is clear; for, — 1. The apostle evidently alludes to the first words of
Genesis, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;"
and the Syriac translation from the Hebrew here places J"i^13. So
here, "In the beginning the Word made all things." 2. The following
words, " The Word was with God, and the Word was God," manifest
the intendment of the Holy Ghost to be, to declare what and where
the Word was before the creation of the world, even with God. 3. The
testimony that he was God in the beginning will no way agree with
this gloss. Take his being God in their sense, yet they deny that he
was God in the beginning of the gospel or before his suffering, as
hath been showed. 4. The sense given by the Socinians to this
place is indee.d senseless. " In tlie beginning" say they, " that is,
when the gospel began to be preached by John Baptist" (which is
plainly said to be before the world was made), "the Word, or the man
Jesus Christ" (the Word being afterward said to be made flesh, after
this whole description of him as the Word), "was with God, so hidden
as that he was known only to God" (which is false, for he was known
to his mother, to Joseph, to John Baptist, to Simeon, Anna, and to
others), " and the Word was God; that is, God appointed that he
should be so afterward, or made God" (though it be said he was God
then when he was with God). " And all things were made by him;
the new creature was made by him ; or the world by his preaching,
and teaching, and working miracles, was made, or reformed" (that is,

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 219

something was mended by him). Such interpretations we may at any
time be supplied withal at an easy rate. 5. To view it a little farther :
" In the beginning, — that is, when John preached Jesus, and said,
'Behold the Lamb of God/ — was the Word, or Jesus was;" that
is, he was when John preached that he was. " Egregiarn vero lau-
dem !" He was when he was! " The Word was in the beginning;"
that is, Jesus was flesh and blood, and then was afterward made
flesh, and dwelt among us, when he had dwelt amongst us ! And
this is that interpretation which Faustus Socinus, receiving from his
uncle Laelius, first set up upon, in the strength whereof he went forth
unto all the abominations which afterward he so studiously vented.

Passing by these two weighty and most material passages of this
testimony, " The Word was God," and " The Word was with God,"
the one evidencing his oneness of nature with, and the other his dis
tinctness of personality from, his Father, our catechists, after an in
terposition of near twenty pages, fix upon verse 3, and attempt to
pervert the express words and intendment of it, having cut it off
from its dependence on what went before, that evidently gives light
into the aim of the Holy Ghost therein. Their words concerning
this verse are, —

Q. Declare to me with what testimonies they contend to prove that Christ cre
ated the heaven and the earth ?

A. With those where it is written, that " by him all things were made, and
without him was nothing made that was made," and " the world was made by
him," John i. 3, 10; as also Col. i. 16; Heb. i. 2, 10-12.

Q. But how dost thou answer to the first testimony?

A.I. It is not, in the first testimony, they were created, but they were "made."
2. John says " They were made by him;" which manner of speaking doth not ex
press him who is the first cause of any thing, but the second or mediate cause.
Lastly, The word "all things" is not taken for all things universally, but is alto
gether related to the subject-matter; which is most frequent in the Scriptures,
especially of the New Testament, whereof there is a signal example, 2 Cor. v. 17,
wherein there is a discourse of a thing very like to this whereof John treats, where
it is said " All things are made new," whereas it is certain that there are many
things which are not made new. Now, whereas the subject-matter in John is the
gospel, it appeareth that this word " all things" is to be received only of all those
things which belong to the gospel.

Q. Hut why doth John add, that " without him nothing was made that was
made?"

A. John added these words that he might the better illustrate those before spoken,
"All things were made by him;" which seem to import that all those things were
made by the Word or Son of God, although some of them, and those of great
moment, were of such sort as were not done by him but the apostles, — as the call-
•ing of the Gentiles, the abolishing of legal ceremonies : for although these things
had their original from the preaching and works of the Lord Jesus, yet they were
not perfected by Christ himself, but by his apostles; but yet not without him, for
the apostles administered all things in his name and authority, as the Lord him
self said, " Without me ye can do nothing," John xv. 5.1

1 " Expone igitur mihi quibus testimoniis approbare contendunt Christum ccdum

220 VINDICLE EV ANGELICA.

Thus to the third verse, of which afterward. We shall quickly
see how these men are put to their shifts to escape the sword of this
witness, which stands in the way to cut them off in their journeying
to curse the church and people of God by denying the deity of their
blessed Saviour.

The connection of the words is wholly omitted, " He was God, and
he was in the, beginning with God, and all things were made by
him/' The words are an illustration of his divine nature by divine
power and works. He was God, and he made all things. " He that
made all things is God," Heb. iii. 4; " The Word made all things,"
John i. 3 : therefore he is God. Let us see what is answered.

1. "It is not said they were created by him, but ' made.' " But the
word here used by John is the same that in sundry places the LXX.
(whom the writers of the New Testament followed) used about the
creation ; as Gen. i. 3, Ka/ sJvsv 6 Qtbg, Tfvrid^ru <pue, xa/ iyivero <pu$,
and verse 6, 'Eyivtro ertpiupa.. And if, as it is affirmed, he was in the
beginning (before all things), and made them all, he made them out
of nothing ; that is, he created them. To create is but to produce
something out of nothing, " nothing " supplying the term from
whence of their production. But, —

2. " They are said to be made ' by him:' it is Bi' airov, which de
notes not the principal, but mediate or instrumental cause." But
it is most evident that these men care not what they say, so they
may say something that they think will trouble them whom they
oppose.

(1.) This might help the Arians, who fancied Christ to be created
or made before all things, and to have been the instrumental cause
whereby God created all other things ; but how this , concerns them

et terram creasse ? — lis ubi ecriptum extat, quod per eum omrda facia sint, et fine eo
faction sit nihil quad factum sit, John i. 3 ; et iterum, Mundus per if sum foetus est, ver.
10, et rursus, quod in eo omnia sunt condita, etc., Col. L 16, et quod Deua per eum
scecula fecerit, Heb. i. 2, denique, et ex eo, Tu in principio, etc., ver. 10-12.

" Qui vero ad primum testimonium respondes ? — Primum, non habetur in primo testi-
monio creata sunt, verum facta sunt. Deinde, ait Johannes, facta esse per eum, qui
modus loquendi, non eum qui prima causa sit alicujus rei, verum causam secundam
aut mediam exprimit. Denique, vox omnia non pro omnibus prorsus rebus hie sumitur,
sed ad subjectam materiam restringitur omnino, quod frequentissimum est in libris
divinis, praesertim Novi Testament!, cujus rei exemplum singulare extat, 2 Cor. v. 17,
in quo habetur sermo de re, huic, de qua Johannes tractat, admodum simili, ubi dicitur,
omnia nova facta esse, cum certum sit multa extare, quae nova facta non sunt. Cum
vero subjecta apud Johannem materia sit evangelium, apparet vocem omnia de iis omni
bus quae quoquo modo ad evangelium pertinent accipi debere.

"Cur vero addidit Johannes, quod sine eo factum est nihil quod factum est ? — Addidit
haec Johannes, ut eo melius illustraret ilia superiora, Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, quas
cam vim habere videntur, per solum Verbum vel Filium Dei omnia ilia facta esse, licet
ejus generis qusedem, et quidem magni momenti, non per ipsum, verum per apostolos
facta fuerint, — ut est vocatio Gentium, et legalium ceremoniarum abolitio : licet enim
hsec originem ab ipsis sermonibus et operibus Domini Jesu traxerint, ad efiectum tamen
non sunt perducta per ipsum Christum, sed per ipsius apostolos, non tamen sine ipso;
apostoli enim omnia nomine et authoritate ipsius administrarunt, ut etiam ipse Do-
minus ait, Sine me nihil facere potestis, Job., xv. 5."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 221

to insist on who deny that Christ had any existence at all before the
world was some thousands of years old is not easy to be apprehended.

(2.) In their own sense this is not to the purpose, but expressly
contradictory to what they offer in the last place, by way of answer
to the latter part of the third verse. Here they say he is not the
principal efficient cause, but the second or mediate; there, that all
things were either done by him or in his name and authority, which
certainly denotes the principal cause of the things done. But, —

(3.) This very expression is sundry times used concerning God the
Father himself, whom our catechists will not therefore deny to have
been the principal efficient cause of the things ascribed to him : Rom.
xi. 36, "From him, and di" aurov, by him are all things;" 1 Cor. i. 9,
" God is faithful, di' o5, by whom ye were called;" Gal. i. 1, "Paul,
an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but dia 'ljj<rou Xpiarou, nai
og, by Jesus Christ and God the Father;" Eph. i. 1, A/a

Qsou, " By the will of God." So that this also is frivolous.
Thus far we have nothing to the purpose. But, —

3. " ' All things' are to be referred to the gospel, all things of the
gospel whereof John treats ; so are the words to be restrained by the
subject-matter." But, —

(1.) This is merely begged. John speaks not one word of the gos
pel as such, gives no description of it, its nature or effects ; but evi
dently, plainly, and directly speaks of the Word that was God, and
that made all things, describing him in his eternity, his works, his
incarnation, his employment, his coming into the world, and his
business; and treats of the gospel, or the declaration of the will of
God by Jesus Christ, distinctly afterward, from verse 15 and forwards.

(2.) For the expression, 2 Cor. v. 17, "All things are become new,"
it is expressly restrained to the " new creature," to them that are " in
Christ Jesus ;" but as to this general expression here, there is no colour
why it should be so restrained, the expression itself everywhere signi
fying the creation of all things. See Gen. ii. 1, 2 ; Ps. xxxiii. 6, cxxi. 2 ;
Isa xxxvii. 16, xliv. 24, Ixvi. 1, 2; Jer. xxxii. 17; Acts xiv. 15, xvii. 24

And this is it which they plead to the first part of the verse, " All
things were made by him."

4. The other expression, they say, is added to manifest that " what
was done after by the apostles was not done without him; and that
is the meaning of these words, ' And without him was not any thing
made that was made.'" But, —

(1.) Their vpurov -^wdog, of referring the whole passage to the de
scription of the gospel, whereof there is not the least tittle nor inti
mation in the text, being removed out of the way, this following fig
ment falls of itself.

(2.) This gloss is expressly contrary to the text. The " all things"
here mentioned are the " all things" that were made in the beginning

222 VINDICLE EVANGELIOE.

of the world, but this gloss refers it to the things made in the erW.
of the world.

(3.) It is contradictory to itself, for by the "beginning" they un
derstand the beginning of the gospel, or the first preaching of it, but
the things that they say here were made by Christ are things that
were done after his ascension.

(4.) It is true, the apostles wrought not any miracles, effected no
mighty works, but by the presence of Christ with them (though the
text cited to prove it, John xv. 5, be quite of another importance,
as speaking of gospel obedience, not works of miracles or conver
sions) ; but that those works of theirs, or his by them, are here in
tended, is not offered to proof by our catechists. And this is the
sense of the words they give : " Christ in the beginning of the gospel
made all things, or all things were made by him, even those which
he made by others after his ascension into heaven;" or thus, "All
things, that is, some things, were made, that is, mended, by him,
that is, the apostles, in the beginning of the gospel, that is, after
his ascension."

(5.) Our sense of the words is plain and obvious. Says the apostle,
"He who was in the beginning, and was God, made all things;"
which he first expresseth positively, and then by an universal nega
tive confirms and explains what was before asserted in an universal
affirmative, " Without him was not any thing made that was made."

And this is the sum of what they have to except against this part of
our testimony, than which nothing can be more vain and frivolous.

The 10th verse is also by them taken under consideration, and
these words therein, " The world was made by him;" against which
this is their procedure: —

Q. What dost thou answer to the second ?

A. 1. That John doth not write here that the world was created, but "made."
2. He uses the same manner of speech which signifieth the mediate cause ; for he
saith " The world was made by him." Lastly, This word mundus, the world, as
others of the same import, doth not only denote heaven and earth, but, besides other
significations, it either signifieth human kind, as the present place manifesteth, " He
was in the world, and the world knew him not," and John xii. 19, or also future
immortality, as Heb. i. 6 ; which is to be understood of the world to come, as it
appears from chap, ii., where he saith, " He hath not put the world to come into
subjection to the angels, of which we speak," but he had nowhere spoken of it but
chap. i. 6. Furthermore, you have a place, chap. x. 5, where, speaking of Christ,
he saith, " Wherefore coming into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou
wouldest not have, but a body," etc. ; where, seeing it is evident that he speaks
of that world into which Jesus being entered was made our priest, as all the cir
cumstances demonstrate, it appears that he speaks not of the present, but of tho
world to come, seeing, chap. viii. 4, he had said of Christ, " If he were on earth
he should not be a priest."1

1 " Quid vero respondes ad secundum ? — Primum, quod hie non scribat Johannes
mundum esse creatum, sed factum. Deinde, eo loquendi modo utitur, qui mediam
causam designat, ait enim, mundum per eum factum. Denique, ha?c vox mun<iusi

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 223

The first two exceptions have been already cashiered ; those which
follow are of as little weight or consideratioa: for, —

1. It is confessed that the word " world" hath in Scripture various
acceptations, and is sometimes taken for men in the world ; but that
it can be so taken when the world is said to be made or created, when
it is equivalent to all things, when it is proposed as a place where-
unto one comes, and where he is, as is the state of the expression
here, there can nothing more absurd or foolish be imagined.

2. Heb. i. 6 speaks not of the world to come, nor is there any place
in the Scripture where the word "world" doth signify immortality
or the world to come, nor any thing looking that way. Heb. ii. 5,
mention is made not simply of the world, but of the " world to come ;"
nor doth that expression of the apostle relate unto that of chap. i. 6,
where the word " world" is used, but to what goes before and after in
the same chapter, where the thing itself is insisted on in other terms.
Nor is future immortality intended there, by the " world to come,"
but the present state of the Christian church, called the " world to
come," in reference to that of the Jews, which was past in that use
of speech whereby it was expressed before it came; as also chap,
vi. 5. Nor is the " world to come" life eternal or' blessed immortality;
life is to be had in it, but " immortality" and the " world to come" are
not the same. Nor is that world ever said to be made, nor is it any
where described as made already, but as to come : as Matt. xii. 32 ;
Luke xviii. 30, xx. 35 ; Eph. i. 21. Nor can it be said of the world to
come that it knew not Christ, as it is of this that he made; nor
can Christ be said to come into that world in the beginning, which
he did not until after his resurrection ; nor is the world to come that
whereof it is said in the next verse, which expounds this, " He came
fie TO. 7dia," "to his own," for then "'his own," o/ 7<5/o/, "knew him
not." So that there is not the least colour or pretence of this foppery
that here they would evade the testimony of the Holy Ghost withal.

3. These words, Heb. x. 5, " Coming into the world, he saith," etc.,
do not in the least intimate any thing of the world to come, but
express the present world, into which Christ came when God pre
pared a body for him at his incarnation and birth ; which was in order

quemadmodum et aliae quae prorsus idem in Scripturis valent, non solum coelum et
terrain denotat, verum prseter alias significationes, vel genus humanum designat, u*
locus pnesens ostendit, ubi ait, In mundo erat, et mundus eum non agnovit, John i. 10,
et Mundus eum secutus est, John xii. 19, aut etiam futuram immortalitatem, ut apparet,
Heb. i. 6, ubi ait, Et eum iterum introdudt primogenitum in mundum, ait, Et adorent eum
omncs angeli Dd, quod de futuro mundo accipi apparet e cap. ii. ejusdem epistolae, ubi
ait, Etenim non angeUs subjecit miendum futurum, de quo loquimur, at nusquam de eo
locutus fuerat, nisi ver. 6, cap. i. Praeterea, habes locum, cap. x. ver. 5, ubi de Christo
loquens, ait, Propterea ingrediens in mundum, ait, Hostiam et oblationem noluisti, verum
corpus adaptasti mild; ubi cum palam sit eum loqui de mundo in quern ingressus Jesus,
sacerdos noster factus est (ut circumstantise omnes demonstrant) apparet, non de prae-
senti, sed de futuro mundo agi, quandoquidem, cap. viii. ver. 4, de Christo dixerat, Si
in terris esset, ne sacerdos quidem esset."

224 VINDICI^E EVANGELICAL

to the sacrifice which he afterward offered in this world, as shall l>o
evidently manifested when we come to the consideration of tho
priesthood of Christ.

It remains only that we hear their sense of these words, which
they give as followeth : —

Q. But what dost thou understand by these words, " The world was made by
him" ?

A. A twofold sense may be given of them : — First, that human kind was reformed
by Christ, and as it were made again, because he brought life, and that eternal, to
human kind, which was lost, and was subject to eternal death (which also John
upbraideth the world withal, which being vindicated by Christ from destruction
acknowledged him not, but contemned and rejected him) ; for that is the manner
of the Hebrew speech, that in such terms of speaking, the words to " make" and
" create" are as much as to " make again" or to "create again," because that tongue
•wants those words that are called compounds. The latter sense is, that that im
mortality which we expect is, as to us, made by Christ; as the same is called " the
world to come" in respect of us, although it be present to Christ and the angels." r

1. That these expositions are destructive to one another is evi
dent, and yet which of them to adhere unto our catechists know not,
such good builders are they for to establish men in the faith. Pull
down they will, though they have nothing to offer in the room of
what they endeavour to destroy.

2. That the latter sense is not intended was before evinced. The
world that was made in the beginning, into which Christ came, in
which he was, which knew him not, which is said to be made, is a
world, is not immortality or life eternal ; nor is there any thing in
the context that should in the least give countenance to such an ab
surd gloss.

3. Much less is the first sense of the words tolerable; for, —

(1.) It is expressly contradictory to the text. " He made the world,"
that is, he reformed it; and, " The world knew him not," when the
world is not reformed but by the knowledge of him !

(2.) To be made doth nowhere simply signify to be renewed or re
formed, unless it be joined with other expressions restraining its
significancy to such renovation.

(3.) The world was not renewed by Christ whilst he was in it; nor
can it be said to be renewed by him only on the account of laying
the foundation of its renovation in his doctrine. " 'By him the world

1 " Quid vero per hsec, Mundus per eumfactus est, intelligis ? — Duplex eorum sensus
dari potest : Prior, quod genus humanum per Christum reformatum, et quasi denuo
factum sit, eo quod ille generi humano, quod perierat, et seternae morti subjectum erat,
vitam attulit, eamque sempiternam- (quod etiam mundo Johannes exprobrat, qui per
Christum ab interitu vindicatus, eum non agnoverit, sed spreverit et rejecerit) ; is
enim mos Hebraic! sermonis, quod in ejusmodi loquendi modis, verba facere, creare,
idem valeant, quod denuo facere, et denuo creare, idque propterea, quod verbis quse
composita vocant ea liugua careat. Posterior vero sensus est, quod ilia immortalitas
quam expectamus per Christum, quantum, ad nos, facta sit; quemadmodum eadera
futurum sceculum, habita ratione nostri, vocatur, licet jam Christo et angelis sit
praesens."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 225

•was made;' that is, he preached that doctrine whereby some in the
world were to be reformed." The world that Christ made knew him
not; but the renewed world know him.

4. The Hebraism of " making" for " re-forming" is commonly pre
tended, without any instance for its confirmation. John wrote in
Greek, which language abounds with compositions above any other
in the world, and such as on all occasions he makes use of.

There is one passage more that gives strength to the testimony
insisted on, confirming the existence of Christ in his divine na
ture antecedently to his incarnation, and that is verse 14, "The
Word was made flesh." Who the Word is, and what, we have heard.
He who was in the beginning, who was God, and was with God, who
made all things, who made the world, in whom was light and life,
he was made flesh, — flesh, so as that thereupon he dwelt amongst
men, and conversed with them. How he was, and how he was said
to be, made flesh, I have declared in the consideration of his eternal
sonship, and shall not again insist thereon. This, after the interpo
sition of sundry questions, our catechists take thus into considera
tion : —

Q. How do they prove Christ to have been incarnate ?

A. From those testimonies where, according to their translation, it is read,
" The Word was made flesh," John i. 14, etc.

Q. How dost thou answer it ?

A. On this account, because in that testimony it is not said (as they speak)
God was incarnate, or the. divine nature assumed the human. " The Word was
made flesh" is one thing, and God was incarnate, or the divine nature assumed
the human, another. Besides, these words, " The Word was made flesh," or
rather, " The Speech was made flesh," may and ought to be rendered, " The
Word was flesh." That it may be so rendered appears from the testimonies in
which the word iy'inn (which is here translated " was made") is found rendered
by the word " was," as in this chapter, verse 6, and Luke xxiv. 19, etc. Also, that it
ought to be so rendered the order of John's words teacheth, who should have spoken
very inconveniently, '• The Word was made flesh," — that is, as our adversaries in
terpret it, the divine nature assumed the human, — after he had spoken those things
of the Word which followed the nativity of the man Christ Jesus : such as are
these, "John bare witness of him;" "he came into the world;" "he was not received
of his own ;" that " to them that received him, he gave power to become the sons
of God." »

1 "E quibus vero testimoniis Scripturse demonstrare conantur Christum (ut loqmm-
tur) incarnatum esse? — Ex iis ubi secundum eorum versionem legitur Verbum caro
factum esse, Job. i. 14; Phil. ii. 6, 7; 1 Tim. iii. 16, etc.

" Quomodo ad primum respondes? — Ea ratione, qxiod in eo testimonio non habeatur
Deum (ut loquuntur) incarnatum esse, aut quod natura divina assumpserit humanam.
Aliud enim est, Verbum caro factum est, aliud, Deus incarnatus est (ut loquuntur) vcl
natura divina assumpsit humanam. Praeterea, haec verba, Verbum caro factum est, vel
potius, Sermo caro factus est, possunt et debent ita reddi, Sermo caro fuit. Posse ita
reddi, e testimoniis in quibus vox ly'mra (quae hie per factum est translata est) verbo
fuit reddita invenitur, apparet; ut in eodem cap., ver. 6, et Luc. xxiv. 19 : Fuit homo
missus a Deo, etc. ; et, Qui fuit vir propheta, etc. Debere vero reddi per verbum fuit,
ordo verborum Johannis docet, qui valde inconvenienter loquutus fuisset, Sermoncm
earnem factum esse, — id est, ut adversarii interpretantur, naturam divinain assumpsisse

VOL. XIL 15

226 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

This is the last plea they use in this case. The dying groans of
their perishing cause are in it, which will provide them neither with
succour nor relief; for, —

1. It is not words or expressions that we contend about. Grant
the thing pleaded for, and we will not contend with any living about
the expressions wherein it is by any man delivered. By the " incar
nation of the Son of God," and by the " divine nature assuming the
human," we intend no more than what is here asserted, — the Word,
who was God, was made flesh.

2. All they have to plead to the thing insisted on is, that the word
ty'snro may, yea ought to be, translated fuit, " was," and not factus
est, " was made." But, —

(1.) Suppose it should be translated "was."what would it avail them?
He that was a man was made a man. In that sense it expresses
what he was, but withal denotes how he came so to be. He who was
the Word before was also a man. Let them show us any other way
how he became so but only by being made so, and, upon a suppo
sition of this new translation, they may obtain something. But, —

(2.) How will they prove that it may be so much as rendered by
fuit, " was." They tell you it is so in two other places in the
New Testament ; but doth that prove that it may so much as be so
rendered here ? The proper sense and common usage of it is, " was
made," and because it is once or twice used in a peculiar sense, may
it be so rendered here, where nothing requires that it be turned aside
from its most usual acceptation, yea much enforcing it thereunto ?

(3.) That it ought to be rendered by fuit, " was," they plead the
mentioning before of things done after Christ's incarnation (as we
call it), so that it cannot be " He was made flesh." But, —

[1.] Will they say that this order is observed by the apostle, — that
that which is first done is first expressed as to all particulars ? What,
then, becomes of their interpretation who say " The Word was made
God by his exaltation, and made flesh in his humiliation ?" and yet
how much is that which in their sense was last expressed before
that which went before it ? Or will they say, in him was the life of
man before he was made flesh, when the life of man, according to
them, depends on his resurrection solely, which was after he ceased
to be flesh in their sense ? Or what conscience have these men, who
in their disputes will object that to the interpretation of others which
they must receive and embrace for the establishing of their own ?

[2.] The order of the words is most proper. John having asserted
the deity of Christ, with some general concomitants and consequences

butnanam, — postquam ea jam de illo Sermone exposuisset, quse nativitatem hominis Jesu
Christ! subsecuta sunt : ut sunt haec, Johannem Baptistam de illo testatum esse; ilium
in mundofuisse; a suis non fuisse receptumj quod iis, a quibus receptus fuisset, potestatem
dedcrit, ut filii Dei fierent.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 227

of the dispensation wherein he undertakes to be a mediator, in his
14th verse enters particularly upon a description of his entrance upon
his employment, and his carrying it on, by the revelation of the will
of God ; so that without either difficulty or straining, the sense and
intendment of the Holy Ghost falls in clearly in the words.

3. It is evident that' the word neither may nor ought to be trans
lated according to their desire ; for, —

(1.) It being so often said before that the Word was, the word is
still jji/, and not sysvero. " In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God ;" — the same was. " He
was in the world, he was the light ;" — still the same word. So that
if no more were intended but what was before expressed, the terms
would not be changed without exceedingly obscuring the sense ; and
therefore lylvgro must signify somewhat more than %v.

(2.) The word lymro, applied to other things in this very place, de
notes their making or their original; which our catechists did not
question in the consideration of the places where it is so used : as
verse 3, " All things were made by him, and without him was
not any thing made that was made;" and verse 10, " The world was
made by him."

(3.) This phrase is expounded accordingly in other places: as Bom.
1. 3, Toy ytvofitvtjv ix ffyrepfAurog Aa£/5 xara ffdpxa, — " Made of the seed
of David according to the flesh ;" and Gal. iv. 4, TSVOJAIVOV ex ywaixog,
" Made of a woman." But they think to salve all by the ensuing
exposition of these words : —

Q. How is that to be understood, " The Word was flesh?"

A. That he by whom God perfectly revealed all his will, who is therefore called
" Sermo" by John, was a man, subject to all miseries and afflictions, and lastly to
death itself: for the Scripture useth the word " flesh" in that sense, as is clear from
those places where God speaks. " My Spirit shall not always contend with man,
seeing he is flesh," Gen. vi. 3; and Peter, "All flesh is grass," 1 Pet. i. 24. l

This is the upshot of our catechists' exposition of this first chapter
of John, as to the person of Christ ; which is, —

1. Absurd, upon their own suppositions; for the testimonies pro
duced affirm every man to be flesh, so that to say he is a man is to
say he is flesh, and to say that man was flesh is to say that a man
was a man, inasmuch as every man is flesh.

2. False, and no way fitted to the intendment of the Holy Ghost ;
for he was made flesh antecedently to his dwelling amongst us ;
which immediately follows in the text. Nor is his being made flesh

1 "Qua ratione illud intelligendum est, Sermonem carnem fuisse ? — Quod is per quern
Deus voluntatem suam omnem perfecte exposuisset, et propterea a Johanne Sermo
appellatus fuisset, homo fuerit, omnibus miseriis et afflictionibus, ac morti denique
subjectus : etenim vocem caro eo sensu Scriptura usurpat, ut ex iis locis perspicuum,
est, ubi Dcus loquitur, Non contendet Spiritus meus cum homine in (Sternum, quia caro estt
Gen. vi. 3; et Fetrus, Omnis caro utfoenum, 1 Pet. i. 24."

228 ; VINDICI^E EVANGELIC^;.

suited to any thing in this place but his conversation with men;
which answers his incarnation, not his mediation ; neither is this ex
position confirmed by any instance from the Scriptures of the like
expression used concerning Jesus Christ, as that we urge is, Rom.
i. 3, Gal. iv. 4, and other places. The place evidently affirms the
Word to be made something that he was not before, when he was the
Word only, and cannot be affirmed of him as he was man, in
which sense he was always obnoxious to miseries and death.

And this is all which our catechists, in several places, have thought
meet to insist on, by way of exception or opposition to our undeniable
and manifest testimonies from this first chapter of John unto the
great and sacred truth contended for ; which I have at large insisted
on, that the reader from this one instance may take a taste of their
dealing in the rest, and of the desperateness of the cause which they
have undertaken, driving them to such desperate shifts for the main
tenance and protection of it. In the residue I shall be more brief.

John vi. 62 is in the next place taken into consideration. The
words are, " What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up
where he was before ?" What we intend from hence, and the force
of the argument from this testimony insisted on, will the better
appear if we add unto it those other places of Scripture wherein the
same thing is more expressly and emphatically affirmed ; which our
catechists cast (or some of them) quite into another place, on pre
tence of the method wherein they proceed, but indeed to take off from
the evidence of the testimony, as they deal with what we plead from
John i. The places I intend are : —

John iii. 13, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he
that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in
heaven." Verse 31, ""He thatcometh from above is above all : he
that cometh from heaven is above all." Chap. viii. 23, " Ye are from
beneath ; I am from above/' Chap. xvi. 28, " I came forth from
the Father, and am come into the world : again, I leave the world,
and go to the Father."

Hence we thus argue : — He that was in heaven before he was on
the earth, and who was also in heaven whilst he was on the earth, is
the eternal God ; but this doth Jesus Christ abundantly confirm con
cerning himself : therefore he is the eternal God, blessed for ever.

In answer to the first place our catechists thus proceed : — -

Q. What answerest thou to the second testimony, John vi. 62 ?

A. Neither is here any mention made expressly of pre-eternity ; for in this place
the Scripture witnesseth that the Son of man, that is a man, was in heaven, who
without all controversy was not eternally pre-existent. l

1 "Ad secundum autem quid respondes ? — Neque hie ullam prse-seternitatis men-
tioncm factam expresse ; nam hoc in loco Filium hominis, id est, homincm in ccelis
fuisse testatur Scriptura, quern citra ullam controversiam prae-geternum non extitisse
certum est."

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 229

So they. 1. It is expressly affirmed that Christ was in heaven be
fore his coming into the world. And if we evince his pre-existence
to his incarnation against the Socinians, the task will not be difficult
to prove that pre-existence to be in an eternal divine nature against
the Arians. It is sufficient, as to our intendment in producing this
testimony, that it is affirmed that Christ %v vporspov in heaven before
his coming forth into the world ; in what nature we elsewhere prove.

2. It is said, indeed, that the Son of man was in heaven ; which
makes it evident that he who is the Son of man hath another nature
besides that wherein he is the Son of man, wherein he is the Son of
God. And by affirming that the Son of man was in heaven before,
it doth no more assert that he was eternal and in heaven in that
nature wherein he is the Son of man, than the affirmation that God
redeemed his church with his own blood doth prove that the blood
shed was the blood of the divine nature. Both the affirmations are
concerning the person of Christ. As he who was God shed his blood
as he was man, so he who was man was eternal and. in heaven as
he was God. So that the answer doth merely beg the thing in
question, namely, that Christ is not God and man in one person.

3. The insinuation here of Christ's being in heaven as man before
his ascension mentioned in Scripture, shall be considered when we
come to the proposal made of that figment by Mr. B., in his chapter
of the prophetical office of Christ. In answer to the other testimonies
cited, they thus proceed, towards the latter end of their chapter
concerning the person of Christ : —

Q. What answerest thou to John iii. 13, x. 36, xvi. 28, xvii. 18 ?

A. That a divine nature is not here proved appeareth, because the words of the
first testimony. " He came down from heaven," may be received figuratively: as
James i. 17, " Every good and every perfect gift is from above, and comethdown
from the Father of lights ;" and Rev. xxi. 2, 10, " I saw the holy city Jerusalem
coming down from God." But if the words be taken properly, which we willingly
admit, it appears that they are not spoken of any other than the Son of man, who,
seeing he hath necessarily a human person, cannot by nature be God. More
over, for what the Scripture witnesseth of Christ, that the Father sent him into
the world, the same we read of the apostles of Christ in the same words above
alleged; as John xvii. 18, " As thou hast sent me into the world, I have sent
them into the world." And these words, " Christ came forth from the Father,"
are of the same import with " He descended from heaven." " To come into the
world" is of that sort as the Scripture manifests to have been after the nativity of
Christ, John xviii. 37, where the Lord himself says, " For this I am born, and
come into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth ;" and 1 John iv. 1,
it is written, " Many false prophets are gone forth into the world." Wherefore
from this kind of speaking a divine nature in Christ cannot be proved ; but in all
these speeches only what was the divine original of the office of Christ is described.1

1 " Ubi vero Script ura de Christo ait, quod de coclo descendit, a Patre exivit, et in
munditm venit, Job. iii. 13, x. 36, xvi. 28, xvii. 18, quid ad hsec respondes ? — Ex iis
uon probari divinam naturam hinc apparere, quod primi testimonii verba, Descendit de
ccelo, possint figurate accipi ; quemadmodum, Jac. i. 17, Omne datum bonum et donum

2uO VINDICLE EVANGELIC^

1. That these expressions are merely figuratively to be expounded
they dare not assert ; nor is there any colour given that they may
be so received from the instances produced from James i. 17 and
Rev. xxi. 2, 10; for there is only mention made of descending or
coming down, which word we insist not on by itself, but as it is con
joined with the testimony of his being in heaven before his descend
ing, which takes off all pretence of a parity of reason in the places
compared.

2. All that follows is a perfect begging of the thing in question.
Because Christ is the Son of man, it follows that he is a true man,
but not that he hath the personality of a man, or a human person
ality. Personality belongs not to the essence but to the existence of
a man. So that here they do but repeat their own hypothesis in
answer to an express testimony of Scripture against it. Their con
fession of the proper use of the word is but to give colour to the fig
ment formerly intimated ; which shall be in due place (God assisting)
discovered.

3. They utterly omit and take no notice of that place where Christ
says he so came from heaven as that he was still in heaven; nor do
they mention any thing of that which we lay greatest weight on, — of
his affirming that he was in heaven before, — but merely insist on the
word "descending" or " coming down;" and yet they can no other
way deal with that neither but by begging the thing in question.

4. We do not argue merely from the words of Christ's being sent
into the world, but in this conjunct consideration that he was so sent
into the world as that he was in heaven before, and so came forth
from the Father, and was with him in heaven before his coming
forth ; and this our catechists thought good to oversee.

5. The difference of Christ's being sent into the world, and the
apostles by him, which they parallel as to the purpose in hand, lies in
this, that Christ was so sent of the Father that he came forth from
the Father, and was with him in heaven before his sending; which
proves him to have another nature than that wherein he was sent.
The similitude alleged consists quite in other things. Neither, —

6. Doth the scripture in John xviii. 37 testify that Christ's send-

perfectum desursum est, descendens a Patre luminum; et Apoc. xxi. 2, 10, Vidi civitatem
sanctam, Ilierusalem novam, descendentem de codo a Deo, etc. Quod si proprie accipi de-
beant, quod nos perlibenter admittimus, apparet non de alio ilia dicta quam de Filio
hominis, qui cum personam humanam necessario habeat, Deus natura esse non potest.
Porro, quod Scriptura testatur de Christo, quod Pater eum miserit in mundum, idem
de apostolis Christi legimus in iisdem verbis citatis superius : Qmmadmodum me misisti
in mundum, et ego mist eos in mundum, Job. xvii. 18. Ea vero verba, quod Christus a
Patre exierit, idem valent, quod de ccelo descendit. Venire vero in mundum, id ejusmodi
est, quod Scriptura post nativitatem Christi extitisse ostendit, Job., xviii. 37, ubi ipse
Dominus ait, Ego in hoc natus sum, et in mundum veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati;
et 1 Job. iv. 1, scriptum est, Multos falsos prophetas exiisse in mundum. Quare ex ejus
modi loquendi modis natura divina in Christo probari non potest. In omnibus vero
bis locutionibus, quam divinum muneris Christi principium fuerit, duntaxat dcscribitur. "

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 231

ingr into the world was after his nativity, but only that the end of
Khemboth was to "bear witness to the truth." And, indeed, "I was
born," and " came into the world," are but the same, the one being
exegetical of the other. But his being born and his coming into the
world are, in the testimonies cited, plainly asserted in reference to an
existence that he had in heaven before. And thus as our argument
is not at all touched in this answer, so is their answer closed as it
began, with the begging of that which is not only questioned but
sufficiently disproved,— namely, that Christ was, in his human nature,
taken up into heaven and instructed in the will of God before his
entrance upon his prophetical office.

And this is the whole of what they have to except against this
evident testimony of the divine nature of Christ. He was in heaven
with the Father before he came forth from the Father, or was sent
into the world, and xa.ru, aXXo xai «XXo, was in heaven when he was
on the earth, and at his ascension returned thither where he was be
fore. And so much for the vindication of this second testimony.

John vi. 62 is the second place I can meet with, in all the annota
tions of Grotius, wherein he seems to assert the union of the human
nature of Christ with the eternal Word,— if he do so. It is not with
the man that I have any difference, nor do I impose any thing on
him for his judgment ; I only take liberty, having so great cause
given, to discuss his Annotations.

There remains one more of the first rank, as they are sorted by our
catechists, for the proof of the eternity of Christ, which is also from
John, chap. viii. 58, "Before Abraham was, I am," that they insist on:—
In this place the pre-eternity of Christ is not only not expressed, seeing it is one
thing to be before Abraham, and another to be eternal, but also, it is not so much
as expressed that he was before the Virgin Mary. For these words may otherwise
be read, namely, « Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was made, I
am ;" as it appears from those places in the same evangelist where the like Greek
phrase is used, chap. xiii. 19, xiv. 29.

Q. What then would be the sense of this reading?

A. Very eminent. For Christ admonisheth the Jews, who would have ensnared
him in his speech, that whilst they had time, they should believe in him as the light
of the world, before the divine grace which Christ offered to them should be taken
from them and be carried to the Gentiles. But that these words, " I am," are to
be supplied in that manner as if himself had added to them, " I am the light of the
world," appears, because that in the beginning of his speech, verse 12, he had twice
in these words, " I am," called himself the light of the world, verses 24, 28. And
that these words, " Before Abraham be," do signify that which we have said, may
be perceived from the notation of that word " Abraham ;" for it is evident that
" Abraham" denotes " the father of many nations." Seeing, then, that Abram was
not made Abraham before the grace of God manifested in Christ redounded to
many nations, for Abraham before was the father of one nation only, it appears
that that is the very sense of the words which we have given.1

" In hoc loco non solum non exprimitur prae-asternitas Christi, cum aliud sit, ante
Abrahamum fuisse, aliud, pras-reternum ; verum ne hoc quidem expressum est, ipsum

£32 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

If our adversaries can well quit themselves of tliis evidence, I be
lieve they will have no small hopes of escaping in the whole trial ;
and if they meet with judges so partially addicted to them and their
cause as to accept of such manifest juggling and perverting of the
Scriptures, I know not what they may not expect or hope for,
especially seeing how they exult and triumph in this invention, as
may be seen in the words of Socinus himself in his answer to Eras
mus Johannes, p. 67. For whereas Erasmus says, " I confess in my
whole life I never met with any interpretation of Scripture more
wrested, or violently perverting the sense of it ;" the other replies,
" I hoped rather that thou wouldst confess that in thy whole life
thou hadst never heard an interpretation more acute and true than
this, nor which did savour more of somewhat divine, or evidenced
more clearly its revelation from God. I truly have not light conjec
tures that he who brought it first to light in our age (now this was
he who in this age renewed the opinion of the original of Christ,
which I constantly defend)" (that is, his uncle LaBlius) " obtained it of
Christ by many prayers. This truly I do affirm, that whereas God
revealed many things to that man at that time altogether unknown
to others, yet there is scarce any thing amongst them all that may
seem more divine than this interpretation."1

'Of this esteem is this interpretation of these words with them.
They profess it to be one of the best and most divine discoveries that
ever was made by them ; whereto, for my part, I freely assent, though

ante Mariam Virgincm fuisse. Et enim ea verba aliter legi posse (nimirum hac ratione,
Amen, amen, dico vobis, Priusquam Abraham fiat, ego sum) apparet ex iis locis apud eundem
evangelistam, ubi similis et eadem locutio Grceca habetur, cap. xiii. 19, Et modo dico
vobis, priusquam fiat, ut cum factum fuerit credatis; et cap. xiv. 29, Et nunc dixi vobis pri
usquam fiat, etc.

" Quae vero ejus sententia forct lectionis ? — Admodura egregia : etenim admonet
Christus Judseos, qui eum in sermone capere volebant, ut dum tempus haberent, crede-
rent ipsum esse mundi lucem, antequam divina gratia, quam Christus iis offerebat, ab
iis tolleretur, et ad Gentes transferretur. Quod vero ea verba, ego sum, sint ad eum
modum supplenda, ac si ipse subjecisset iis, Ego sum lux mundi, superius e principio
ejus orationis, ver. 12, constat et hinc, quod Christus bis seipsum iisdem verbis, ego sum,
lucem mundi vocaverit, ver. 24, 28. Ea vero verba, Priusquam Abraham fiat, id signi-
ficare quod diximus, e notatione nominis Abraham deprehendi potest ; constat inter
omnes Abrahamum notare patrem multarum gentium. Cum vero Abram non sit factua
prius Abraham, quam Dei gratia, in Christo manifcstata, in multas gentes redunda-
ret, quippe quod Abrahamus unius tantum gentis antea pater fuerit, apparet senten-
tiam horum verborum, quam attulimus, esse ipsissimam."

1 " Fateor me per omnem vitam meam non magis contortam scripturae interpreta-
tionem audivisse; ideoque earn penitus improbo." — Eras. Johan. "Cum primum fa-
tendi verbum in tuis verbis animadverti, sperabam te potius nullam in tua vita scrip-
turse interpretationem audivisse, quas hac sit acutior aut verier : quseque magis divinum
quid sapiat, et a Deo ipso patefactum fuisse prae se ferat. Ego quidem certe non levcs
conjecturas habeo, ilium, qui primus setate nostra earn in lucem pcrtulit (hie autem is
fuit, qui primus quoque sententiam de Christi origine, quam ego constanter defendo
renovavit) precibus multis ab ipso Christo impetrasse. .Hoc profecto affirmare ausim,
cum Deus illi viro permulta, aliis prorsus tune temporis incognita, patefecerit, vix
quidquam inter ilia omnia esse quod interpretatione hac divinius videri queat." — Socin.
l>isput. cum Eras. Johan. arg. 4, p. 67.

DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 233

withal I believe it to be as violent a perverting of the Scripture and
corrupting of the word of God as the world can bear witness to.

Let the Christian reader, without the least prejudicial thought
from the interpretation of this or that man, consult the text and con
text. The head of the discourse which gives occasion to these words
of Christ concerning himself lies evidently and undeniably in verse
51, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he
shall never see death." Upon this the Jews rise up against him, as
one that boasted of himself above measure, and preferred himself
before his betters: Verse 52, "Then said the Jews unto him, Now
we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the pro
phets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste
of death;" and, verse 53, "Art thou greater than our father Abra
ham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest
thou thyself?" Two things are here charged on him by the Jews :
First, in general, That he preferred, exalted, and honoured himself.
Secondly, in particular, That he made himself better than Abraham
their father. To both which charges Christ answers in order in the fol
lowing words. 1. To the first or general charge of honouring himself :
Verses 54, 55, " Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is
nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom^ye say, that
he is your God. Ye have not known him ; but I know him : and if I
should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you : but I
know him, and keep his saying." His honour he had from God, whom
they professed [to know,] but knew not. 2. To that of Abraham he
replies, verse 56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and
he saw it, and was glad ;" — " Though Abraham was so truly great, and
the friend of God, yet his great joy was from his belief in me, where
by he saw my day." To this the Jews reply, labouring to convince
him of a falsehood, from the impossibility of the thing that he had
asserted, verse 57, " Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou
seen Abraham ?" — " Abraham was dead so many hundi el years before
thou wast born, how couldst thou see him, or he thee?" To this, in
the last place, our Saviour replies, verse 58, "Verily, verily, I say
unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." The Jews knowing that by
these words he asserted his deity, and that it was impossible on any
other account to make good that he, who in their esteem was not
fifty years old (indeed but a little above thirty), should be before
Abraham, as in a case of blasphemy, they take up stones to stone
• him, verse 59, as was their perpetual manner, to attempt to kill him
under pretence of blasphemy, when he asserted his deity; as John
v. 18, " Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he
said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

This naked and unprejudicate view of the text is sufficient to ob
viate all the operose and sophistical exceptions of our catechists so

234 VINDICLE EVANGELIC^.

that I shall not need long to insist upon them. That which we have
asserted may be thus proposed : He who in respect of his human
nature was many hundred years after Abraham, yet was in another
respect existing before him; he had an existence before his birth, as
to his divine nature. Now this doth